The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Relief for Businesses Affected by Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to the current crisis resulting from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease by introducing a hardship relief package to reflect the fall in incomes being experienced, not only by farm- related businesses but also by businesses in the tourist industry.
First, I will explain the basis of the motion. The motion came about after a joint meeting of the Committees for Finance and Personnel and Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I welcome the cross-departmental Committee approach to the matter and hope that we will receive a cross-departmental response. It is important that we achieve joined-up Government on this issue.
The motion reflects a recognition of the major crisis in Northern Ireland as a result of foot-and-mouth disease. The two Committees have agreed to sponsor the motion, but I am speaking on a personal basis as a Member of the Assembly, not as the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. I have had no direction from the Committee. My comments are my own recollections of the matter.
The motion calls on the Minister, the Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to the crisis by introducing a hardship relief package to reflect the fall in incomes. The crisis hit —

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion is clearly in the name of the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Member now says that he is not speaking as Chairperson but rather on a personal basis. Either the Order Paper is wrong or something else is wrong. Will you give a ruling?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member is moving the motion on behalf of the Committee of Finance and Personnel, and, in that capacity, he is moving the motion as Chairperson of that Committee.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought I heard the Member say that he did not have the permission of his Committee to speak as Chairperson. It is not an agreed response, and he is, therefore, putting forward his own personal view.
It is important to clarify to the House whether Mr Molloy’s remarks are supported by the weight of his Committee, or whether he is merely expressing his personal view.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would be grateful, Mr Molloy, if you would clarify that point before continuing.

Mr Francie Molloy: A LeasCheann Chomhairle, I will explain my position in an attempt to avoid any problems later. I am proposing the motion as Chairperson of the Committee. I have the endorsement of both Committees. Having first proposed the motion, I went on to speak in my own capacity.
The motion calls for the Minister, the Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to the crisis by introducing a hardship relief package to reflect the fall in incomes. This crisis hit the farming community, particularly farmers, who have suffered severe hardship. We are all linked to that community, and the economy is strongly based on agriculture, therefore every aspect of life, particularly business life, is affected by this crisis. Farmers whose flocks have been destroyed have been compensated for their animals, but they have not been reimbursed to cover restocking and loss of income. They have nothing to sell at the end of the year, no ground to rent, and ground rents to pay. They face an uncertain future which, because of that uncertainty, the banks do not want to hear about.
All farmers are affected by the crisis, but they cannot get compensation to alleviate a number of those losses. For instance, sheep on common grazing ground cannot be turned out on that ground. Where should those sheep graze at present? Farmers do not know whether to sow fertilizer for future grazing — if they sow it but then cannot use the land, how are they to be compensated for that loss?
Culled sows cannot be exported to Germany at present, with the result that there is a build-up of stock on farms, thus leading to excessive bills for feed. Even if a farmer is eventually able to sell those animals, he will not have benefited from this delay. A mechanism is needed by which those animals can be culled and taken off the farms, thereby reducing the cost of keeping those animals alive.
These are the questions that farmers have been asking. These problems need to be responded to through a package. Farmers are also suffering the knock-on effects of the closure of the countryside. I do not refer solely to the closure of country walks, but to farm marts, which in some cases have been closed by the Department for ten weeks. These closures have been reinforced by the European Union. Marts are gaining no turnover because farmers are banned from using the facilities. The income of one mart has been reduced to 15% of an average year’s profit. There are no cattle or sheep sales, and no land lettings for those marts. The fact that people are unable to enter farms means that income cannot be generated from other sources, yet they still have to pay rates and other bills.
Over the last few years, farmers have been advised to diversify their activity by starting up farm businesses. I received a letter from the owners of a saddlery business, which has lost its normal turnover of £75,000 to £80,000 a year. This loss is a result of the cancellation of horse shows throughout Ireland and the restriction of other means by which the business can be carried out.
They are depending on the countryside and shows being opened up. Michael Meacher’s scheme for small firm loans does not affect them; they cannot access those loans. These people have no security; on paper they have no future, so the banks do not want to know.
School trips and tours to the countryside have all been cancelled. Various sections of the tourism industry have been closed down, so coach companies are operating about one third of their previous business. Open farms —

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is increasingly difficult for Members of this House to listen to the concern expressed by Mr Molloy and his Colleagues for the farming community. One considers vivid pictures of ladies having to guard their husbands and tractors as he and his Colleagues sought to murder them and put them out of business — to take their lives, never mind their livelihoods. It is nothing short of a disgrace.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. As regards points of order, I will ask the Member to make reference to the Standing Order he invokes. Please continue, Mr Molloy.

Mr Francie Molloy: Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Open farms have been closed down completely, therefore no income has been earned from them. Farm shops are closed. While they may have had a good start to the year, machinery businesses have now found that hire- purchase companies and lease companies are refusing to grant leases. That is because businesses have no money, no prospects of money coming in and, again, no security. Banks do not want to lend money, and in some quarters the farm businesses that are selling machinery and supplies to the industry have been closed down.
While hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation are still open and still have to pay their bills, they do not make any income, because tourists are not arriving in the numbers which had been expected. Tourist areas like the Glens and the Sperrins have been affected dramatically in that way. For these businesses, costs continue, but no income is being made.
Even in urban areas, shops have been affected. Farmers were part of that trade; they supported business and shops in small towns, but now they do not have the income. Business is affected, because farmers do not know where their future lies.
I certainly do not purport to have all the answers to this. However, I am sure that we will throw out many ideas in today’s debate. First, we must recognise that this is not just a crisis on the farm; this problem has a wider aspect to it. Our economy is based around agriculture, and while many full-time farmers derive their income totally from farming, many others are part-time farmers and in various jobs. They need farm business so as to support their families. They also need the support of the broader community.
We need to stimulate a cross-departmental response. It is for that reason that the motion calls for the Executive to produce a package which will actually respond to this catastrophe.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must put that package of finances together. If we try to do it out of the grant under the Barnett formula, then it simply will not happen, as that grant will not provide sufficient funds. We need the Chancellor to open up the war chest and ensure that it is used now in a very productive way to alleviate the emergency in the farming and rural community. If we try to do it ourselves within the Barnett formula, we will extend the problem rather than alleviate it.
Social welfare is one area in which an immediate response can be initiated. In that respect, we need to take into account the prices for farmers but not the land that the farmers live on. In the past, farmland, machinery and assets were all taken into account before people were deemed entitled to benefit. In the circumstances, I hope that the Department for Social Development can actually set that aside for now and deal with this in a flexible and considered way. It must be taken into account that farmers are in crisis and do not normally go looking for social benefit. There is real fear in their community that they may be forced to sell their land, machinery and plant if they apply for benefits.
Rates rebate is one of the options that may come up in the package — a means of dealing with the crisis right away. If we use accelerated passage in the way that we have done for certain finance legislation, I am sure that there would be cross-community support to ensure that that happened quickly. Farmers are in a crisis. They have no money coming in, but the rate bills still come. It is not good enough to defer payment for three months. They will still have to pay the full bills over nine or ten months. Deferring payment will not help farmers or farm businesses, who will be forced to pay a high rate. We need to take into account the fact that there has been a reduction in income and turnover when calculating the rates and not deal with them as before.
The best way of alleviating the problem would be to give a direct grant. The Exchequer could put a direct-grant package together, payable to businesses across the spectrum that have lost income because of the crisis. They would have to provide proof that loss had been incurred, and their accounts could be used for this.
There should be a regeneration grant for farm businesses that are trying to restock and get going again to ensure that they will be able to do this. Farm businesses are affected in the same way as other businesses. The IDB and other agencies put packages together to try to attract businesses. Here we have businesses that are already part of the economy, and it is important to help them rebuild. They will, after all, be rebuilding the economy.
I urge the Minister and the Executive to put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put such a financial package together. Others may have ideas about what to include in that package, but we need to recognise the urgency of this. It needs to happen right away. The situation cannot be allowed to linger, because the farming community will go under as a result of this crisis. It needs to be dealt with now.
I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the large number of Members wishing to contribute to the debate, and the time available, I ask Members to restrict their contributions to five minutes.

Sir Reg Empey: Since we last addressed this issue the full extent of the hardship is beginning to emerge in surprising places. My office is currently dealing with between 40 and 50 cases of a variety of businesses that are suffering significant degrees of distress. The most obvious and urgent impact is primarily on the tourism industry. However, difficulties are also emerging in many consequential businesses. For example, the cancellation of agricultural shows has affected the suppliers of cups and rosettes and others who service these events. They have suddenly found their incomes completely obliterated. People who sell farm requisites such as barbed-wire fencing are also finding a sudden drop or cessation in their turnovers. The most obvious difficulties are in the tourism sector, where it is clear in many cases that there have been overall reductions. In other cases businesses have flatlined completely due to their proximity to agricultural land or a fishing estate.
As Members know, my Department has initiated, through the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, a recovery plan for tourism. This was an initial reaction to try to show that tourist facilities are open for business, provided people follow the guidelines set out by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. This reaction has taken place throughout the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland as well. We see in today’s press that the Republic is also gearing up for similar types of activity.
Some local authorities and others are trying to fill the gap left by the cancellation of many major events. Attempts are being made in Coleraine to put a package together to compensate for the loss of the North West 200, which is the most obvious and serious cancellation. I support that. It is the right thing to do. Activities of that nature, provided they are focused on trying to get bed-nights and entertainment for local people, are to be welcomed.
We are naturally focusing on consequential compensation, which is understandable in the circumstances. It could be of assistance to many businesses. The major solution to this problem is not compensation — it is to get our visitors back. That is the main objective that we must set ourselves. Only when we get our visitors back will we be able to help those businesses in a meaningful and long-term way.
Our tourism throughput and revenue grew last year by approximately 11%. That followed a series of years during which growth was enjoyed. A significant amount of investment has been made by companies, bed-and- breakfast proprietors and chalet owners at the behest of, and with the assistance of, the Government.
It must be remembered that we have been appealing for farm diversification for years. People have heeded that advice and have diversified, in many cases, into resource-based and natural-based tourism and rural development, and public funds have been directed to assist that.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Over £200 million was spent in west Tyrone on rural development, creating just over 200 farm diversification schemes. Those schemes, because of their dependence on agriculture, are now under threat. I support the Minister’s point.

Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful for the Member’s intervention. He has taken a keen interest in these matters.
We should not focus on compensation alone in this debate. The key issue is the long-term sustenance of businesses that will be achieved only when we get our visitors back.

Mr Sean Neeson: I was very impressed by the positive approach taken last week by the two Committees, as a result of which we are able to debate this realistic motion. Farming has been the focus of much of the attention in recent weeks, but given the Committee’s remit on tourism, I will deal with that.
The Committee met with the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation. The current forecast is of a 30% reduction in bookings for this season. The Chairperson will give other statistics. This crisis affects both urban and rural hotels. The federation was lobbying for VAT relief, but that will provide only short-term cash-flow relief. The more important matter, about which it has spoken to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, is rates relief.
I welcome the meeting that the Minister had last week with his tourism Colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we act together as far as possible on this. I take on board the point that more people must be encouraged to visit our shores, and we will respond to that.
I want to emphasise the plight of the horse racing industry in Northern Ireland. I met with the officials of the Down Royal racecourse. They have not held a race meeting since last November, and this has led to job losses and financial difficulties. I hope that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development can provide some relief for them.
I appeal to the Executive to clarify the criteria for the return of horse racing to Northern Ireland. Will it be the case — as it was in the Republic of Ireland — that horse racing could recommence 30 days after the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease? We need clarification on that issue soon or there will be huge problems for the future of horse racing in Northern Ireland.
I was approached recently by coach operators throughout the Province. Many of them would normally be transporting schoolchildren to various events. However, this is not happening. They have no income but still have to pay for the maintenance of their buses. Some of them are very concerned about the attitude of the financial institutions in Northern Ireland towards the problems that they are facing. I plead with the Assembly for the Executive Committee, or another Assembly body, to meet with the banks in Northern Ireland to see whether something can be done to deal with the current crisis.
There have been substantial lay-offs in several areas of various industries that have been hit by the foot- and-mouth crisis. It would be helpful if we made a case to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We should be quantifying the number of job losses that are taking place. This is important if we want to move forward on the issue.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I do not need to tell Members that foot- and-mouth disease is a common enemy and that every person in Northern Ireland has been affected in some way. The ordinary person in the street has been affected as well as those who work in farming and tourism. It is important now for everyone to stand shoulder to shoulder to combat the disastrous effect it has had on our economy.
This is the first crisis that we have faced as a new, devolved Government, and the way that we handle this matter will set a precedent for the way that we will deal with any future crises. The harsh reality is that no one knows, or can accurately predict, the long-term impact of foot-and-mouth disease or the outcome of the disaster. The real scale of the problem for the farming and tourism industries could be colossal, and it will have a ripple effect on a large number of businesses.
We must acknowledge that this is not only an economic issue — it is also an equality issue, and we must address it as such. One of the main problems is that we do not have a hardship fund here, and there is an immediate need to establish one as soon as possible. However, decisions such as how much money should be diverted into such a fund, and where that money should be diverted from, must be made sooner rather than later.
We do not want a knee-jerk reaction. We must be realistic, because we cannot wave a magic wand and hope that the problem will go away. There may be some short and medium-term remedies, but we have to look at the overall picture and study the long-term effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the community and the economy as a whole.
I am advocating prudence and foresight to ensure that Members try to deal with the issue as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is essential that the Assembly examine the cost implications of any scheme carefully, and it is important that there be solid cross-party support for the Executive’s developing an approach that meets the needs of those who are affected by the crisis. At the same time, the existing pressures in the various Departments must also be addressed.
All options must be clearly laid out, and they must be costed and realistic. Any approaches must clearly show how the Assembly intends to meet the cost implications across the board. Will the Assembly direct unallocated funds, or can it use end of year flexibility to meet the needs? These questions must be carefully considered and answered. The Assembly must also have a solution that will use any consequential funds from the Treasury as well as existing schemes in the various budgets that reach out to those most deeply affected.
Members must pull together to combat the hardship that has been caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and make hard decisions on how to finance it. Every Department must examine its budget to see what options are available. I have every confidence that with careful consideration all Members can contribute to the alleviation of the crisis.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Last Friday the Agriculture Committee met a deputation from the Northern Ireland Livestock Auctioneers’ Association. Twenty-four firms were represented who operate 30 livestock marts. They were led by the chairperson of the association. The marts have been closed down by law; they are not like any other part of the sad saga that is going on. They are not legally allowed to operate, so their losses cannot be described as consequential; their losses are a result of the law. I am not arguing that the law is not good or right. The auctioneers all agreed that this had to be done. The marts could not continue to operate as if nothing had happened — they had to close. However, the law closed them down, as a result of which the auctioneers went completely, totally and absolutely out of business. They voiced real concern about the fact that their colleagues in Scotland, whom they had met a couple of days before, had been told that £13·5 million has been set aside by the Scottish Parliament to deal with the foot-and-mouth crisis there.
Whether the Department’s actions in closing the marts were legal may be tested in the courts because of compensation claims. However, that is not what the Committee was discussing or that the auctioneers were advocating. The auctioneers need to get back in business as soon as they can. The losses caused to the marts are immediate and directly related to the movement ban and the closures. The chairperson of the association estimated that £1 million of income has been lost during what is normally the busiest and most profitable time of the year. However the marts still have to pay rates. The Committee heard of a bill of £36,600 for two marts. In some cases the marts must pay rent to local councils; they also have overdrafts to service and insurance bills to pay, and the list goes on and on. The marts have had to lay off some 400 full-and part-time staff, some of whom will be permanently lost to them. Redundancies are resulting in further costs to the marts.
The auctioneers are in dire financial straits, and members of the Agriculture Committee agree that they should be compensated. Members also shared the auctioneers’ concerns about the future of their sector, because their work comes from the stock market of the industry.
That is where prices are set; that is where the market can be examined and prices given in a competitive way. If that is taken away, there will no competitiveness left.
If the markets are closed it will strike a blow and sever an artery in the local community. In many places where the local mart was closed down there was devastation in the community — particularly in the business community of the town or village concerned.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat A LeasCheann Comhairle.
I welcome the opportunity given by the two Committees to debate this issue and to ask the Government to provide a relief package for all concerned. There are many people, across all areas, who are very severely affected by foot-and-mouth outbreaks. Many sectors are involved — some more than others. Entire businesses are affected, and there is a question mark over whether those businesses will have a future at all. That has to be taken into account.
Consequential losses are much more severe in some cases than in others. In particular, some people, including farmers and those who are involved with farming, have moved towards tourism as a way of increasing their income. That means of income has now been taken from them because of the foot-and-mouth situation. Some compensation should be given to those people. In particular, compensation should be given to businesses that have been almost completely closed, almost forced to close — in many instances, businesses have not been forced to close completely because they would have had to receive compensation.
The marts are a case in point. They were forced to close. They had no choice. They were not advised, as others were, and therefore they need particular compensation for their losses. They are still being asked to pay rates and cover costs, and they will be asked to increase the amount of measures to be put in place before they can reopen. That may mean that for some of the marts, particularly the smaller ones, it will not be economical to reopen. That will be a severe consequence of foot-and-mouth disease for many small communities.
Most marts, like cattle, are west of the Bann, so the impact of the foot-and-mouth crisis is greater there. Those farmers have been unable to sell their stock. They do not finish beef and, therefore, are not in a position to sell their stock directly to meat plants. Those farmers have not had an income for a very long time — since the crisis began — and they still do not know when they will be able to sell stock and get an income. What has been done with regard to farmers’ welfare and telling them how they can find other ways of earning an income in the meantime? A package to deal with those matters needs to be put in place, as well as some sort of compensation.
One of the things that has emerged from the crisis is the general public’s focus on farming and the countryside. Members of the public have given particular sympathy to farmers, both here and in Britain. They have had to look at the industry as they have never done before. It seems that what was happening in farming before the crisis began was of little consequence to those outside the industry. The crisis has had an impact on those sectors that are outside the farmgate, and people have had to listen and take note. They should take a greater interest in the quality of the food they eat and the future of the farming industry and also in what can be done to alleviate this problem and prevent it from happening again.
There are people involved in the food sector, in producing and processing food, who have lost severely as well, people, for instance, in the pork and bacon business who exported across the border. They were closed down at the beginning of this outbreak. They have been put totally out of business and may well not be able to start up again. I know of a number in the Fermanagh area, in Tyrone and in some of the border counties. Those people have suffered severely and have had no one to whom they can voice their concerns. They need to be looked at in particular by the IDB or anyone else who can possibly help them, because they are going to have severe difficulties in expanding their businesses.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Butchers have also lost business, although one did say that his income had increased in recent months because people were somewhat afraid of the packages coming from further afield and the supermarkets.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the Member’s time is up.

Mr David McClarty: I support the motion. Over recent weeks, my Colleagues and I have highlighted with varying degrees of expertise and authority the dire consequences of foot- and-mouth disease on our farming, tourism and hospitality industries. We all know — indeed society at large is only too well aware — of the pervading consequences of the crisis for our entire economy.
With that said, I am sure that most of us here have been relatively fortunate and have had limited, if any, first-hand exposure to the detrimental effects of this virus. It is often from theoretical knowledge that we speak, and not from experience. That is why it is imperative that we all now get alongside those who have suffered during recent weeks, those who have suffered financial loss, hardship or even ruin, and those who, through no fault of their own, face economic, not to mention psychological, depression.
Many people — farmers, hoteliers, those in the tourism industry and small business proprietors — are experiencing very real pessimism. There are too many people in the doldrums of economic insecurity. That is why the time is right to show those who have been affected by foot-and-mouth disease that we support them in their hour of need. We are fortunate that with a devolved Administration we can do just that. We must all show solidarity with the people of this country who have been, and continue to be, affected.
It would be a tangible and beneficial gesture to give affected businesses financial relief measures. While such measures would be for discussion at the Executive and at central Government level and could include business rates relief, I strongly advocate that action be taken sooner rather than later. While a financial package of relief would not be a panacea for the mounting financial problems of the past two months, it would, at the very least, provide a financial kick-start to many affected businesses.
I support a compensation package that will be swift to emerge, cutting in its effectiveness and non- cumbersome in its delivery. I have spoken to many people from the farming community in my constituency of East Londonderry and to many in the tourism and hospitality sectors who were relying on the financial boost provided by a successful North West 200. These people have very real and immediate insecurities.
They, I and all those who have made sacrifices, big and small, can only view with horror and disgust the few, the greedy, the defrauders, the cheats and the liars who have put self first and their fellow citizens and neighbours last by flouting the law with illegal animal movements, fraudulent claims and lies. They are the guilty — guilty of dishonest practice. They have jeopardised the livelihoods of so many others. They deserve to be hounded by the law and condemned by every single person who has chosen the responsible course of action, frequently at personal inconvenience, financial loss or, indeed, ruin. Let us not forget those who are the heroes and those who are the villains of the foot-and-mouth crisis.
As the motion says, if there is to be a hardship relief package, let us not focus solely on those who have the wherewithal to make media headlines, but also on those who are quietly suffering and who might be anticipating a period of despair.
In conclusion, many voices are singing for financial assistance during this time of economic hardship. Each voice is worthy of being listened to — and must be listened to. We have a responsibility not only to hear the parts, but to realise the gravity of the tune they sing and to respond accordingly. I support the motion.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I too support the motion. The severe hardships of the agriculture industry — and farmers in particular — have already been well amplified. Against this background, many have reduced incomes, and many have no income. Those problems have occurred with increasing regularity.
As I am sure Members well remember, sheep farmers in my area have already endured serious hardship as a result of the ban on grazing in the Silent Valley catchment area. Can you imagine the hardship that those men and their families are now suffering? There is injustice in the fact that the infection was not actually caused by sheep but by infrastructural deficiency, despite attempts by departmental officials to cover this up. What has happened to all these people’s requests for compensation?
I am also struck by the position of the tourist and leisure industry. I am reminded of the great hardships they experienced over the last 30 years and their resilience and endurance when their businesses — which were often based in their own homes — were declared to be economic targets, attacked and often destroyed. They have had to battle against an increasingly bleak situation and negative publicity. Yet, in the Newcastle and Castlewellan area, which I represent — often described as the "jewel in the crown" of Northern Ireland’s tourist industry — some seaside hotels have, in the past, been forced to let their staff take summer holidays. This was because the hotel staff were so successful in mastering the conferencing trade that they could only take leave during the summer. Despite all those hardships, they succeeded. Those establishments now tell me that their business, in this present crisis, is being reduced by up to 70% in some weeks of operational business. There is a particular need to provide support for those people.
In my area — which, as I said, is a tourism area — there are many pony-trekking and horse riding centres. I can cite one example, which is very familiar to me, of a man who has worked for the last 30 years to build up his business. He now has 40 ponies for trekking, but he has not gained one shilling of income since the outbreak of this crisis. If anyone in the House knows what it costs to keep one horse for one week, he should have some idea of the plight of someone who has had to try to keep 40 horses for the last six or seven weeks without any income. Some people will have reduced income; some of the farmers who have suffered will even get compensation, but people in this type of situation receive no support — there is no hope. He will soon have to sell off everything and close the business after 30 years of hard work. If that is not a clear example of the need for consequential financial support to sustain such people, I do not know what is.
The responsibility to provide that falls on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that our Minister of Finance and Personnel will make strong representations to ensure that we get the package of financial support that we need, and I was heartened to hear the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment correctly identify the support that we need to ensure that our businesses regain confidence.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: During the Easter recess, we were recalled to debate an issue that Members on the opposite side of the House said was not essential. However, they were able to turn out then and pack those Benches. It is a pity that the presence on those Benches today does not reflect the urgency of this issue.
We face a crisis. It is important that the Government demonstrate today that they will get a grip on that crisis and demonstrate that they have a way forward for the entire economy. In the early part of the crisis, policy was marked by confusion. One day it appeared that Northern Ireland was closed for business; the next the Executive launched a multi-million pound tourism initiative. The following day, a huge tourist event was cancelled, but events in other parts of Antrim were able to proceed. Nothing was done to stop a rave at Nutts Corner that attracted about 15,000 people. It is essential that such confusion be addressed.
The confusion was not just in Northern Ireland; there was confusion in the Isle of Man, England, Scotland and Wales. There has been no long-term planning for a disaster such as foot-and-mouth disease. The United States of America runs a foot-and-mouth disaster plan every year, and that disaster plan has proved successful; they have not had foot-and-mouth disease since 1926 or 1927. Our Government have been found wanting in their disaster planning. I hope that they will put a disaster planning strategy in place.
Members will agree with what Reg Empey said this morning. In the medium and long term, we must get visitors back to Northern Ireland. We must, however, ask the question that was raised by his statement: when the visitors come back — next year or later this year — will we have the facilities to cater for them? Many people feel that the problems that have affected the tourism industry and the catering trade could be long-term ones. It is up to the Government to produce a proper package of measures that will help us get over the crisis.
The cancellation of the North West 200 has cost north Antrim and east Londonderry about £6 million. If such an event were to have taken place in Belfast but had been cancelled, the loss — adjusted accordingly — would have been £50 million. Belfast could not sustain that financial loss, and my region should not be asked to sustain its loss without adequate compensation.
The information supplied in the first few days of the crisis was disappointing. Red tape still impedes many businesses. We must ensure that we ease the pressure on tourism and retail businesses in the most drastically affected areas. A regulated impact unit should make a snapshot study of what is happening, and the Government should implement the findings of that study. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
Shops, restaurants, hostels, hotels, and bed-and- breakfast businesses cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. The Government must throw them something to show that there is going to be light at the end of the tunnel. A massive tourism and business drive must be initiated, and I welcome some measures that have been taken. I hope that the Government address the insurance premiums which these businesses have to pay, additional rates relief and other imaginative programmes to help businesses get out of the problems they face.
In conclusion, we need stopgap compensation for regions already hit by the consequences of foot-and- mouth disease. My region in Moyle depends on seasonal employment. That has gone for good this year, and what is the Government going to put in its place?

Ms Michelle Gildernew: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for bringing this motion to the House. This is the first time that the Assembly has debated the debilitating effect of foot-and-mouth disease on the community.
Coming from a farming background, I am acutely aware of how badly foot-and-mouth disease has affected us all. While the damage to tourism has been severe, the fact that the people who live and work here all year have much less money to spend on a daily basis has resulted in downturns in spending in shops, pubs and restaurants. Indeed, it has often been said that when the farmers are doing badly, we are all worse off. Their spending power is critical to the economy on this island.
The fact that a rates rebate has not been made available to businesses is a major mistake. While a three-month stay of execution will give temporary relief, it will only put an additional burden on businesses, as the same rates will still have to be paid, albeit later. Businesses should have been given a discount on their rates, which would help them keep their heads above water — not a cosmetic exercise, which will have no real benefit.

Mr Mick Murphy: Gabh mo leithscéal. Will the Member give way? While the country has been focused on the farming industry —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has only five minutes, which must include the time that an intervention takes.

Mr Mick Murphy: While the country has been focusing on the farmers’ plight, and rightly so, many other businesses face closure and hardship due to this unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I know of one business in my constituency, the East Coast Adventure Centre, which has lost business in excess of £30,000 a month, has had to lay of staff and is facing the prospect of closure.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: I thank my Colleague for his intervention. Many businesses are probably going to go under this year because of the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on their revenue.
We need to be imaginative about how we tackle the increase in job losses, which are an additional blow to the rural community in Fermanagh and Tyrone. An average farm income is usually supplemented by a wage from an outside source. However, with so many jobs lost in the textile industry and food production, this source of revenue is lost also. A county like Fermanagh, which has had to rely on tourism and agriculture for the vast majority of its economic revenue, has felt the effect of foot-and-mouth disease twice as much as any other county in Ireland. In general, the rural community has responded well to the needs of the farming community. Organisations like the GAA have been extremely responsible and patient as they wait for the disease to diminish.
A hardship package is a necessity to alleviate the prospect of financial ruin for many people. A joined-up approach from all agencies, especially from the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, is required to support the farming community, the tourist industry and the rural economy. Measures like organic farming, for example, will need to be supported financially to increase confidence in the products provided. We must do all in our power to help the farmers — the backbone of the rural economy — to get back on their feet.
I support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I speak on this motion with a heavy heart and the utmost sympathy for farmers and their families, who have bore the brunt of this foot-and–mouth disease, and for the effect it has on wider industry in our Province.
We must now take stock of our farmers’ plight and the knock-on effect in associated agri-food operations.
The farming industry has yet again been hit by a crisis; this time it is foot-and-mouth disease. It is important that Members be informed about how the disease came about. The first case of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom came at the beginning of February. Sheep were imported to be slaughtered, but they were not slaughtered. We must find out how those sheep found their way on to unsuspecting farms. Had the handling of those sheep been carried out properly, Northern Ireland would have fared a great deal better. Prevention is better than cure.
To date, four cases of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed. In what way has the epidemic impacted on Northern Ireland? If Northern Ireland is to legislate properly in respect of the disease, we must first give an accurate assessment of its effects. As a representative of Mid Ulster I have had first-hand experience of the effects of the desperate disease. Two of Northern Ireland’s cases to date have occurred in Mid Ulster.
Just as the economy of our Province was beginning to pick up in the wake of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease hit the industry. I would be failing my constituents if I did not tell the House of the suffering of the wider rural community. Social events have been cancelled, fewer meals have been eaten in hotels, and forest parks are shut. Those are just a few examples. Sporting fixtures had to be cancelled Province-wide, and the burning of cattle has done nothing to attract visitors to Northern Ireland. However, we find ourselves in an emergency, and it is the Assembly’s duty to lead. The Assembly must provide whatever help it can to those worst hit by foot-and-mouth disease.
Compensation has rightly been awarded to those farmers who have seen their livelihoods destroyed by the disease. But what of the wider rural industries affected by the disease in our Province? Are they forgotten victims? Rural tourism has also been adversely affected in our Province as a result of the disease.
Farmhouse and bed-and-breakfast accommodation is at a complete standstill. Boat and coach hire companies have been decimated by cancellations. Major international events, including the Balmoral Show and the North West 200, have been cancelled. Tourism is worth over £350 million to the Northern Ireland economy, and it employs 38,500 people. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has warned of a £2 million loss due to foot- and-mouth disease. The entire tourism infrastructure is threatened, and the effects of that will be felt across the economy of Northern Ireland.
The EU has closed all auction marts, but livestock marts are still paying rates. Their rates should be frozen until auction marts are back in business. We need to ensure that those auction marts are still operational when the threat of foot-and-mouth disease has passed.
I appeal to the Ministers of Finance and Personnel and Agriculture and Rural Development to get their heads together. They must provide the best package they can muster to help all affected industries — especially the wider rural industries — in this time of dire need. The Province is on its knees after the BSE crisis, which clobbered farmers with disaster. Allow me also make a plea to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to complete all outstanding payments of premium even if it means some element of derogation from Europe. I support the motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I support the motion. Since mid- February nightly reports on our televisions have shown the results of the foot-and-mouth disease on the farming community, and the scarring of the countryside with burial pits and burning pyres. That has had a devastating effect on the farming industry and on those businesses that are countryside-dependent. As the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development said last week, compensation is unfortunately limited to those who have had livestock slaughtered or feeding-stuff seized.
The Government’s current position is that there is no provision or precedent for consequential compensation. That also applies to livestock markets. Last week Ulster’s premier rural showpiece, the Balmoral Show, was called off with an estimated loss of £5 million. That cancellation of a three-day event that attracts more than 60,000 people each year was a severe blow.
Businesses other than the farming industry are also affected. The cancellation of major events such as the North West 200 will have a negative impact on the local economy and cause hardship for many businesses.
In an article last week the chairman of the Institute of Directors (IoD), Eric Bell, said that the IoD had surveyed UK members at the beginning of April. Thirty-five per cent of them responded that their businesses had been affected. These include small businesses from farm suppliers to bed-and-breakfast establishments. They are all counting the cost. Compensation has, quite rightly, come to farmers who have lost herds. A rates deferral scheme is operating, and small firm loan guarantee schemes have been amended and extended. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is considering what compensation schemes are required and how they may be administered.
The £1million marketing-based tourism recovery plan is crucial to future visitor numbers. Recently the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee met with the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation, which gave some stark statistics. Losses in tourism are running at three times those of agriculture, with a forecasted loss of over £8billion for 2001. Business is down by 50%. Hotels across the country have had a flood of cancellations. Hospitality and tourism employs 35,000 people across NorthernIreland, with 30,500 employed directly in hotels. These people are now being laid off. The industry is worth £350million to the NorthernIreland economy. The Northern Ireland Hotels Federation pressed the Committee for urgent assistance with business viability and a marketing strategy to rebuild tourism.
Recently hoteliers in Derry and the north-west told me that bookings are down dramatically, some by up to 75%. Hotels have cut prices, but it is becoming difficult to survive as conferences are being cancelled. Easter was particularly quiet with only one third of rooms occupied. When prices are cut, it is very difficult to get them back to a more normal rate. Hotels are also affected in other ways; limited supplies for menus mean higher retail prices. All in all it is becoming more difficult to operate. The knock-on effect is considerable. Every facet of our economy is being affected. A broad range of support measures, such as payment deferrals and rebates for VAT, rates and other taxes, as well as compensation for lost earnings, and interest-free loans is needed.
I call on all Departments in the Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that any assistance is not dogged by red tape and delay. Swift help is needed if NorthernIreland is to recover from the foot-and-mouth crisis and tackle the longer term issues which will determine our future prosperity. There was an article in last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on a survey carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers. It gave a loss of £200million as being the best-case scenario for NorthernIreland. In the same paper a guest house owner had written a letter saying that he is almost visitor-free due to the foot- and-mouth crisis. These are the grim effects. We need a relief package to prevent NorthernIreland’s becoming an economic desert. I support the motion.

Mr Edwin Poots: This is an issue of great concern. Many people would say that tourism in my constituency of Lagan Valley has not been badly affected, but that is not the case. Lagan Valley has the largest horse-racing festival in NorthernIreland; the second largest motorcycle race — the Ulster Grand Prix; the largest cinema complex; and the top leisure swimming pool complex in the United Kingdom. Last year 25,000tourists used the tourist information centre in Hillsborough village.
A recent report from Sir Reg Empey showed that some £9million was spent by tourists in Lagan Valley over the last year. Tourism is a major business in our community in spite of the fact that the constituency does not have seaside venues, unlike the constituencies of other Members who have spoken. Local businesses are suffering the effects, and many are complaining that their trade is down. While many businesses can absorb a loss of trade even for a sustained period, others are not in such a position. Business is very poor for those who have bed- and-breakfast establishments, especially those who offer farmhouse accommodation.
I also have to mention coach operators. They are not getting the business, because people do not want to go on tourist trips around the Province. Many of the locations that they would like to visit are closed. Coach operators are being severely hit by the current foot-and-mouth-disease crisis. The Executive and the relevant Ministers have to look closely at this issue. They have to do something to compensate those people for their losses.
I also ask that specific reference be made to livestock marts, which are a separate case in that they have been instructed by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to cease trading. That decision has been backed up by the European Commission In my opinion, this creates a legal question for the Minister of Finance and Personnel, given that mart owners still have to pay rates. Something is wrong if one Government body says that an individual is not allowed to carry out his business, but another charges him a business rate.
We have a Government which talks a good deal about fair treatment and which has equality policies. We also hear a good deal about joined-up government — let us see this happen. Let the Minister of Finance and Personnel get together with the Minister of Agriculture to deal with this issue. Five hundred people are employed in the livestock marts. My concern is that many marts will not reopen their doors when the foot-and-mouth crisis is over. Today in Northern Ireland sheep farmers receive for their lambs about half the price received by farmers in the Republic of Ireland. Clearly, that is because in Northern Ireland there are only four meat plants where lambs can be killed. The trade which we would normally have had with the Irish Republic has gone.
If the livestock marts are not open when Northern Ireland gets back to business, the farmers will suffer further, because the meat plants will have the monopoly on the sheep trade, just as they have dominated the meat trade for the last five years since BSE emerged. It is essential that we give these people the support that they need to see through this crisis. We need to be there when it is over, because it will have a major effect on the entire agriculture community.
I ask the Minister to take particular note of that, but also to examine the situation of coach operators and those who offer bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They have been hardest hit by the foot-and-mouth crisis. Farmers have been badly affected, but although I am from a farming background, I must say that the tourist industry and the livestock marts have been worst hit. It is imperative that the Minister look at these issues and give these people the support they need.

Mrs Joan Carson: I am pleased to speak in strong support of the motion. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has been another crippling blow to the farming community, which is still reeling from the consequences of BSE. Those consequences reach into every part of our daily lives and into all parts of the Province’s economy. Several Members mentioned the plight of farmers and the unique problems of the cattle marts. There are several marts in my constituency, and something must be done directly to help them.
Today, however, we ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel to respond to the crisis outside the immediate farming community by providing a financial package to alleviate hardship suffered by these farm-related businesses and the tourist trade.
In all parts of my constituency, but particularly in Fermanagh, tourism has been extremely hard hit by cancellations of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, hire cruisers and all associated amenities. Thankfully, the fishing waters have now reopened, and a slow trickle of tourists is returning. The overall loss to the tourist trade, however, has been grievous. Everything possible must be done to encourage visitors to return. We saw interviews with some American tourists who had weird ideas about the effect of foot-and-mouth disease on humans. Publicity must be spread further afield to counter such ideas.
When the Minister considers his financial aid package, I ask him to look outside the immediate area of tourism and to take account of those with ancillary businesses. I speak of specialist shops where there has been a drastic drop in sales of fishing tackle and accoutrements and outdoor clothing. Souvenir shops — even coffee shops — have all lost income. The list is endless.
I ask the Minister to encompass businesses outside the immediate perceived tourist areas when looking at relief packages. As some other Members have pointed out, tourism reaches right across Northern Ireland. I have been told of one business in south Tyrone that has tackle and tack for sale for outdoor pursuits. It has had a huge drop in income — up to 80%. These business people are the backbone of Northern Ireland, and I hope they will not be excluded from any forthcoming relief package.
I support the motion.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I too support the motion. We have heard of the serious drop in business experienced right across Northern Ireland. That is especially true in border areas. In the constituency where I live a significant level of business is cross-border. Fermanagh and South Tyrone is a constituency which has many border crossing points to counties such as Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim and Donegal, so for many businesses a significant proportion of trade is cross-border, and many traders there are experiencing serious difficulties.
Mrs Carson referred to the situation for those who operate self-catering enterprises or run guest houses or hotels or hire cruisers. There is a strong case for a greater response from the Government in view of the difficulties.
Food processing is another sector where difficulties are great. That is due to the restrictions imposed by the Government on the southern side of the border. I spoke to a food processor today who has already lost £50,000 worth of business and has had to allow three of his employees to go. I spoke to a butcher about a week ago, and he told me that 95% of his business was cross-border.
I support the idea of assistance for the traders in difficulties. A number have submitted plans for assistance to bodies such as the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and LEDU and are asking "What now?" about them. Are those agencies taking account of the different and difficult circumstances that have obtained since those plans were submitted? I urge agencies such as LEDU to be more proactive and have a greater presence in the areas that are experiencing the greatest difficulties. I see no reason why LEDU and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board should not, temporarily at least, open offices closer to the problem. Their presence there would act as an important link between local businesses and the Government Departments.
I refer to Government Departments in the North and South. If there were a local presence which liaised with the Government agencies, it would reassure and restore confidence to those affected by the situations I have described. LEDU, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Training and Employment Agency should be more proactive in providing advice and assistance, and this should be dealt with urgently.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. I want to talk more the tourism aspect. According to the figures we received, the cost of the crisis to the economy is approximately £200 million. When this cost is looked at in the context of the whole Province, it gives us an idea of how much everyone has to lose.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers carried out an extensive study into the impact of the crisis on the agriculture and tourism sectors. The problem is that the agriculture industry, when it did not have problems, diversified into the tourism sector. We now have a double whammy, because tourism has also been affected by foot-and-mouth disease. The crisis is now affecting every aspect of the agriculture economy, not just those directly involved in agriculture, but others who suffer the ripple effect of foot-and-mouth disease.
The report also suggested that the figure quoted might reflect a best-case scenario. It stated that the eventual cost to the economy could rise beyond £200 million. If every high-profile, crowd-pulling, sporting, recreational and cultural event continues to be affected, and subsequently cancelled, the cost to the economy will spiral. Every constituency will feel the pinch.
In my constituency of Strangford, as with most other constituencies, we have a very strong rural community whose livelihoods depend on agriculture and the diversified field of tourism. There is an incredible fear among many people in agriculture and other sectors, because they do not know where their next pay cheque is coming from. Our farming industry is already on its knees, and it seems to be suffering one blow after another. Farmers are extremely vulnerable, and they need to do everything they can to protect their livelihoods. The crisis is now rippling through to other sectors in a virus-like way, spreading anxiety throughout the economy.
Outside agriculture, the tourist industry, which represents 8% of the local economy, is now experiencing the very same slump as has been reported on the mainland. The crisis on the mainland is more widely publicised through its greater PR and bigger headlines. The closure of numerous public attractions, including such National Trust properties as Mount Stewart, and the cancellation of big events have caused the demand for accommodation literally to disappear.
As a result, for those farmers who diversified into tourism, for example those who set up bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the market has dried up. The tourism industry in the Kingdom of Down, which covers four council areas, is worth between £7 million and £8 million annually, and services such as bed-and-breakfast establishments face a worrying and uncertain future. The number of bed-nights has slumped to an all-time low. To compound their problems, tourist organisations face VAT demands which they are simply unable to meet. I understand that HM Customs and Excise has made some concessions by offering help to farmers and those involved in tourism. Despite this, however, it is impossible fully to compensate their loss.
To illustrate the plight of some of those involved in tourism, a local newspaper reported that a guest-house owner who had been in business for more than 40 years and his colleagues in the same sector had been left almost visitor-free by the foot-and-mouth crisis. They fear for the future of the industry. How much worse could it get for these people? They can make their livings only during the six months of spring and summer, and their profits have to take them through the winter and early spring. Those people have appealed to the Tourist Board, the Executive and the Assembly to intervene and help them. The sympathy we feel towards the farmers and the agriculture sector should extend to the tourism industry, as it is also in difficulty.
The same story applies across the Province, not just in the Strangford area. It is very worrying to watch the infrastructure that our positive angle on tourism has built up over the years dissolve in front of our eyes.
This also has an impact on the retail sector with regard to goods produced for outdoor and country pursuits. As a consequence, from next week, firms in Newtownards that make outdoor socks for walking in the countryside will be working a three-day week.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr George Savage: There is often public misunderstanding of the issues involved in farming. This is probably due to the fact that the bulk of the population are now urban dwellers. Nowhere is this misunderstanding more apparent than with regard to the question of compensation paid to farmers in the wake of the foot-and-mouth crisis.
The public needs to understand that compensation for the market value of an animal is only the beginning. Along with buildings and land, animals are the main asset of the farmer, but animals are an active asset which in normal times generate income. A farmer’s work in rearing and feeding animals represents what we would call "value added" in business terms. That is a concept the wider public will understand.
A farmer’s income is derived from the value he adds to the animals through feeding and nurture and a small element of profit in addition. That profit was already eroded before the foot-and-mouth crisis. It is a profit margin which, in the wake of recent crises such as BSE, has already turned into a loss for many farmers.
The key point is that the farmer needs to be compensated, not only for the market value of the animals he has lost, but also for loss of the income he could reasonably have expected to earn from those animals in normal circumstances. This must also be part of the equation.
Furthermore, it is not simply those farmers whose herds suffered an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease who are affected. Nor is it just those whose land adjoins farms where outbreaks have occurred and have had their animals culled. The foot-and-mouth outbreak has caused a collapse of normal market conditions everywhere. All farmers have been affected, not to mention the dependent industries and related businesses such as tourism. My Chairperson and many other Members have mentioned that the livestock marts have been instructed to close by Government officials. Machinery dealers and all industries associated with the agriculture industry are affected. As our Colleague across the Chamber said, the horse industry is practically at a standstill. Top racehorses who have come over here to be covered by stallions cannot get back from the stud farm to their own farm. The entire farming community has suffered losses consequential to the economic displacement caused by this epidemic.
At the Agriculture Committee on Wednesday 18 April, the Minister said that such consequential loss would be infinite and that it would create huge problems. That may well be true. I agree with the Minister that in normal circumstances the Northern Ireland block grant could not handle it, but these are not normal circumstances.
One of the most important consequences of the present crisis was revealed in a survey in ‘Farming Life’. According to that study, one third of the farmers affected by foot-and-mouth disease have decided to sell up or to leave the industry.
Clearly, this is crucial. The unprecedented economic dislocation experienced since the first outbreak necessitates immediate and urgent consideration to be given to an early retirement scheme which I have outlined before in this Chamber. Only a scheme of this dimension can handle the inevitable restructuring of farming. People, including the Government, are only beginning to appreciate the size of the agriculture industry. We heard how tourism and interrelated industries in Northern Ireland have been affected. I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance and Personnel is here today. The situation affecting the agriculture industry is so serious that there will need to be an imaginative response which marks a real departure from the past. We have witnessed the last generation of farmers who are prepared to work for nothing.
12.00
I have had meetings with the Minister, and the Department is fully aware of the problems. It realises that only a radical response from the Government will do. I hope that this compensation package —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for affording the Assembly the opportunity to have this debate. We have had a serious and important debate on the implications of the foot-and-mouth disease, the threat that it represents to our entire agriculture sector and individual farm businesses, as well as the wider consequential damage to other sectors, not least — but not only — the tourism sector.
The Executive have been alert to all the dangers posed by foot-and-mouth disease since its outbreak across the water. We know now that we are witnessing the worst outbreak of the disease in Britain for a generation. The Executive were aware of all the risks from the beginning. We have moved decisively — and with all possible speed — to protect our vital interests in agriculture and, in turn, to try to contend with the difficulties posed for the wider economy. We have a clear strategy for trying to achieve this objective.
The first priority has been, and will continue to be, effective action to contain outbreaks and to eradicate the disease. In this way alone will we be able to recover the disease-free status that our farmers need. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has been at the forefront of this effort. I pay tribute to the outstanding leadership shown by Bríd Rodgers, who has worked ceaselessly throughout this crisis. In a subsequent motion today, she will have a further opportunity to update the Assembly on the current position, and she may address many of the serious issues that have been raised by Members in this debate.
I stress that the fight against foot-and-mouth disease is the responsibility of all Government Departments. The Executive have made it clear that the work on containment and eradication that has been led by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will be supported by additional personnel and resources drawn from across the public sector as necessary. I pay tribute to the support and co-operation of all Ministers and their Departments in meeting those additional personnel needs. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has a role in trying to co-ordinate cross-Executive efforts to try to reinforce the hard work of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
The second prong of the strategy has been to get markets moving again, to take effective measures to restore confidence in the tourism sector and to try to attract visitors back to the region. Central to this effort, as we heard, has been the work on the new tourism strategy that was launched on 5 April by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey.
As Sir Reg Empey explained, the strategy injects an additional £1 million in tourism. It will support promotions in the US, Canada, Europe and Scotland. The money will also be used to provide for more locally centred initiatives, including trade and media receptions.
Renewed efforts will be made within the island of Ireland through television, radio and press to raise awareness of the excellent holidays that we offer. As Sir Reg Empey emphasised, the most important thing we can do for the long-term benefit of tourism is bring the visitors back. Customers are the best answer to the problem.
The Executive are well aware that the effects of foot-and-mouth disease do not stop at the farmgate. There is a wider adverse economic impact from the disease and from the measures that have been needed to tackle it.
The Executive have set up a task force led by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to monitor the wider consequences of the outbreak. It will also consider what feasible and practicable measures would be appropriate to support those sectors most affected, taking account of local circumstances. That group has links to the rural task force in Great Britain to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from any initiatives that are taken in Great Britain.
Steps have already been taken to help businesses adversely affected. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are working together and taking a sympathetic approach to deferring payment of tax for businesses suffering financial problems as a result of foot-and-mouth disease. No interest will be charged for any period of deferral. In addition, all possible steps are being taken to speed up VAT repayments to farmers to aid their significant cash-flow difficulties.
Further aid is available through the Department of Trade and Industry’s small firms loan guarantee scheme, which has been specially extended to help businesses affected.
I announced on 15 March that the Rates Collection Agency would enter into agreements with any business facing hardship because of foot-and-mouth disease to defer rates payments for up to three months. That help has been put in place very quickly and is assisting a number of hard-pressed cases.
I take issue with the suggestion that any of the deferment schemes — rates, VAT or others — are mere cosmetic exercises. They are measures that we have been able to take within available discretion. Given the limit to other measures, those measures should be recognised as welcome initiatives.
These measures provide a breathing space for businesses adversely affected by foot-and-mouth disease. However, the Executive have also been acting over the past weeks to ensure that more is done and that more measures are taken to give effective relief in cases of hardship.
The Executive’s general approach to hardship relief is guided by the principle, reflected by many Members today, that businesses here should be supported in as beneficial a way as businesses in Great Britain. The picture there is changing, and there are variations in the approach taken in different areas across the water. Members are also aware that the legislative framework available to us is different in both character and detail from that in Great Britain.
We cannot simply introduce the same rate relief scheme as has been introduced in Britain, because the statutory basis for operating such a scheme does not exist in Northern Ireland. I know that it has been suggested that we could get the statutory basis if we legislated by means of accelerated passage. Notwithstanding the possibility of accelerated passage, our legislative regime is not the same as Great Britain’s, given the implications of the equality duty and the need to go through the full period of consultation. Any rate relief scheme that we introduce on that legislative basis would require secondary legislation as well as primary legislation, therefore it could not be achieved as readily as some Members might want it to be or assume that it could be.
On 12 April, the Executive remitted the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make proposals for a scheme of a similar nature and with an effect similar to Great Britain’s scheme. Those Departments are working on a range of options which will be considered by the Executive as a matter of urgency. When decisions have been made, the details will be announced as soon as possible. The work that is being done by the three Departments will be presented to the Executive by the task force, chaired by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which is dealing with the economic issues created by foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr Jim Wells: Is there to be a form of rates moratorium or a general consequential loss package? In my constituency, there are businesses that are about to go to the wall but who pay very low rates — some are run from home. Some of these businesses face hundreds of thousands of pounds of loss. Is the package that the Minister proposes simply a way of reducing the rate burden, or is it a wider consequential loss package that will identify the top 20% to 30% of affected businesses and provide compensation for the huge losses that they have incurred?

Mr Mark Durkan: I refer the Member to my earlier point that we have concentrated on as many people as this debate has made reference to. We have tried to ensure that the benefits that we make available to businesses in Northern Ireland are comparable to those extended to affected businesses across the water. Many Members have referred to questions about rates, therefore that is the matter that I have been addressing.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Minister know anything about the £13·5 million that the Scottish Parliament has set aside for a compensation package?

Mr Mark Durkan: Different measures and criteria are being employed by the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales as well as the different councils in England. We are aware of different amounts of money that have been announced as part of packages and schemes. We are putting forward a case to the Treasury based on our need for additional resources to help us alleviate the effects and consequences of foot-and-mouth disease. The funds are to be used not only to alleviate the consequential difficulties faced by different businesses, but to cover the considerable costs of contending with the disease. We are continuing to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that we receive a full and fair share of the moneys that are made available from the contingency reserve.
The Department has had contact with the Treasury. On the basis of that, we are confident that any scheme developed here which has similar effects and delivers similar benefits to those that are being run across the water will be the subject of a read-across of extra money to us. That does not mean that we will be paid the full cost of any scheme that is adopted. I therefore ask Members to be realistic in that regard. The Assembly cannot come up with any scheme, at any cost, and automatically get the money from the Treasury. Many Members have made the point that more resources are needed from the Treasury. In reality, while Members can agree that the Treasury should listen to that case, there is no guarantee that it will.
In those circumstances and within the limits of what is available to us, we must explore how best we can assist the cases of hardship, and that is what the Department is trying to do. In his opening remarks, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel said that the money should not be coming out of the block grant. Many Members have said that that case should be made to the Treasury. We could face circumstances where little addition is made to our existing block grant for these needs. There is no guarantee that the Department of Finance and Personnel and the First and Deputy First Ministers’ representations to the Treasury will deliver as much as Members would like. In that instance the Department must decide how it can fund the measures we want to implement to mitigate the effects of this emergency on businesses. We will not be able to compensate for all of the trading difficulties and losses that different business sectors are suffering. We can try to mitigate the effects as they impact on particular sectors and localities. Therefore we are looking at options aimed at doing that. Obviously, as Sir Reg Empey indicated, the Executive are trying to look at other means of assistance that can be given to businesses by way of support and information.
Allow me to answer points that were made at the end of the debate. This issue is not just about the amount of money that might be made available; it is also about the way in which services and support are provided across the range of public sector agencies.
Particular reference was made to the livestock marts. Many Members stressed that the livestock marts are a case apart, because, effectively, they are closed by order of law. That is a factor that the Executive are sensitive to, and, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am alert to. The Executive will be considering it fully.
I recognise the severe effect of foot-and-mouth disease on the entire economy and on the agriculture and tourism sectors in particular. Both sectors are central to our present and future economic strength. We cannot afford a major downturn. Members have cited the figure from PricewaterhouseCoopers of £200 million that appeared in the newspapers. While that includes the effects of other factors such as the downturn in trends in the world economy, as well as foot-and-mouth disease, the Executive recognise that we must respond as effectively as we can. However, we must take account of the statutory limitations that prevented us from taking those steps that some people wanted us to take before now. We must also realise that if our efforts with the Treasury do not deliver the additional moneys we want, we may face financial limitations.
I want to make sure that the concerns that have been reflected in this debate are fully reflected by the Executive when we consider the sort of measures and package to be put together. It is very useful that the debate has coincided with the Executive’s considerations. The mandate that we received predated this motion. The Executive’s considerations are not being prompted by the motion, but they will be assisted and enlightened by the useful points that have been made.

Mr Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion.
First, I would like to reflect the views of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Francie Molloy, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, Mr Sean Neeson. They praised the joint-Committee and cross-party approach to the motion and said that it was an effective way to move on the severe hardship that is being felt throughout the Six Counties.
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey made a very pertinent point in his submission. He said that the focus was on getting visitors back and getting the industry back on its feet. He also said that last year there was an 11% growth in the industry. I commend his efforts last week when he met his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and England to try to get the tourist industry back on its feet.
The motion focuses on the immediate need for a hardship relief package. This is not only an issue for the business industry but for farm-related businesses too. The financial burden of a hardship relief package must lie with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the Executive collectively, must request such a package of him.
Mr Francie Molloy said that the crisis is not confined to the farms — it is much more widespread. He said that we must regenerate grants for farm businesses beyond the farmgate.
Mr Sean Neeson spoke of a 30% reduction in bookings in hotels for this season and of the need for clarification of the criteria that will used in the horse racing industry when it returns to normal.
The Minister spoke of the need to bring the industry back to growth, of his efforts to do so — there was an 11% growth last year — and of the need, which has been ongoing for a number of years, to diversify beyond farming itself and into tourism.
Ms Lewsley spoke of the overall, long-term picture and of how we must carefully consider the allocation of funds.
Rev Ian Paisley focused on the facts that, by law, marts are closed down, that the Scottish parliament has set aside £3·5 million pounds to deal with these losses and that the marts have already laid off 400 full-time and part-time staff.
Gerry McHugh focused on farmers west of the Bann, on how they have had no income since the foot-and-mouth outbreak started and on how they cannot sell their animals.
David McClarty spoke of the need to provide financial relief measures sooner rather than later.
Eamon ONeill mentioned horse riding and pony- trekking and highlighted the case of one person who has 40 ponies to look after, with absolutely no income. He said that the burden must fall on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
Ian Paisley Jnr spoke of the need for a disaster plan and for the Executive to focus on bringing such a strategy forward. Michelle Gildernew felt that it was a major mistake that only a rates rebate was being given; she felt that much greater relief was needed and that there should be a discount.
Billy Armstrong mentioned the effect on the 38,000 people who are employed in tourism. Annie Courtney spoke about compensation’s being limited to those whose livestock had been culled or whose feedstuff had been taken, and she mentioned that tourism was suffering at a ratio of three to one when compared to farming — an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Edwin Poots focused on bed-and-breakfast establishments and farm bed-and-breakfast establishments in particular. He made the point that sheep farmers here are receiving half the compensation that such farmers are receiving in the South. Joan Carson spoke of the need for publicity to feature the fact that we are open for tourism and to explain the real effects of foot-and-mouth disease, as opposed to the phoney ones on which some media commentators, particularly in America, have been focusing.
Tommy Gallagher spoke about the food processing industry; the loss of £50,000 in some businesses; a case where staff had been laid off; and the ongoing effect on the industry. Jim Shannon spoke about cutbacks in stocks and the fact that many companies were going on a three- day week — something that needs to be alleviated.
George Savage referred to the knock-on effects beyond the farmgate on machinery dealers and all businesses associated with farming. He pointed out that the block grant was simply not enough. Mark Durkan made a number of points, perhaps too many to enumerate. He did say that the Executive were working on measures for hardship relief, that all Departments were involved and that they were putting a case for a fair share of the contingency reserve. Earlier today I spoke with the Minister of Education, who informed me that fishing and tackle shops were also experiencing severe cutbacks.
On April 3, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee interviewed the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation. We had 44 pages of evidence dealing with its plight. I will read an extract to highlight that. Mr F Mooney said
"Since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland many hotels, particularly city hotels, have experienced a dramatic downturn in the number of conferences … being booked. The city hotels seemed to be bearing the brunt of cancellations in the initial period. As the tourism season unfolds for tourist-based properties, the industry is forecasting the possibility of a 30% reduction in bookings. The ability to maintain the present quorum of people employed in the industry has yet to be finally assessed. However, many people are indicating that to get them through the current season they are looking at either reducing working hours from 40 to 30 hours or reducing their staff complement by 10% or 15%.
We have come through a period of preparation for business in Northern Ireland. We have invested in training our staff and in improving our product, and at present we are in a very vulnerable state. If we cannot manage the revenue streams coming in, the cost centres must be looked at. Some of the cost centres are at the rateable valuation of the properties, PAYE, VAT et cetera. Those are some of the tax burdens that, with help, we can alleviate over the next six months.
I sit on a number of committees that represent industry in both the North and the South. The picture in the South is no better. Even though it is a developed tourism destination, the message that has been given to people thinking of holidaying in Ireland is ‘Not this year — come back and think about Europe next year’. For long-haul destinations in particular the hotel industry is forecasting a 50% reduction in bookings. It is forecasting that June, July and August will be very poorly affected. The tour operators who are running niche market activities such as fishing, golfing et cetera are all very badly affected.
We are learning" —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Member’s time and the time for the debate is up.

Mr Pat Doherty: I would like to conclude by calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a hardship relief package and to ensure that the tourist industry is protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to the current crisis resulting from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease by introducing a hardship relief package to reflect the fall in incomes being experienced, not only by farm-related businesses but also by businesses in the tourist industry.
The sitting was suspended at 12.32 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair —

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Madam Deputy Speaker, will you indicate the timing of this debate?

Ms Jane Morrice: We have two hours for this debate. The time for contributions will depend on your opening statement.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That this Assembly acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and hardship caused to, farmers, their families and the wider rural community in responding to the Executive’s policies and guidance regarding foot-and-mouth disease, and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Executive colleagues to act to alleviate these difficulties as quickly and imaginatively as possible.
Mr Savage, the Deputy Chairmperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, will reply to this debate.
While the statements made by the Minister to the Assembly on Monday mornings are very welcome, they offer only a limited opportunity for questions, and we felt that such a crucial issue should be the subject of a full-scale debate — bearing in mind the debate this morning.
Throughout this crisis the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has met with the Minister each week. The one exception was when we took a written update to hear the most up-to-date position on the foot- and-mouth outbreaks and to express our constituencies’ views on the Minister’s handling of the crisis. During these meetings a wide variety of topics were discussed, and it was clear that Members wished to see tight controls in place, both to keep any further infection from entering Northern Ireland and to ensure that the virus was contained. At times Members have questioned the Minister’s policies — not to indulge in political point- scoring but in a genuine attempt to understand the issues — to ensure that constituencies’ concerns are aired and to provide a focus of accountability to the public. That is part of the role of a departmental Statutory Committee.
Members have also shared the Minister’s anger at those who have brought this plague upon Northern Ireland. I do not wish to concentrate this debate on a denunciation of those involved, because the general public has already denounced them. I trust that they will soon be brought before the courts and receive severe sentences. My Committee and I want to see relief for the many innocents who are suffering severely. Throughout the Committee’s deliberations there has, quite understandably, been an emphasis on the needs of the farmers. Members have called for action on regionalisation, direct compensation for slaughtered animals, swift and uninterrupted payment of subsidies to farmers and consideration of the seasonal realities being faced by farmers with regard to feeding and moving livestock. All members of the Committee have received distressing telephone calls and letters and have been met by deputations of people who are really suffering.
I will give the Minister a summary of the most pressing matters that have been put to the Committee. Movement licences do not apply to many farms, especially beef and sheep farms where the sheep are on the fields and cattle cannot be let out. On welfare grounds, we need an urgent solution — when I say urgent, I mean it with all my heart and soul. Farmers could be sued for not treating their animals according to proper welfare standards, but they have no other option, because they cannot get them out into the fields. That is an urgent matter, and I trust that the Minister will make a response on that today.
Many farmers have had no income for the last nine weeks. Farm-to-farm sales must be started immediately. Subsidy payments must be speeded up; delays in payment are unacceptable, particularly in this crisis. The IACS forms are impossible to complete, as farmers cannot say whether they will be able — or allowed — to rent land or purchase livestock. I trust that the Minister will take that on board. Rather than adding further costs to the farmer, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should meet veterinary costs associated with animal movement licences. The Minister has suggested the end of August as the end of the timetable for registration. That is unacceptable. Stores of milk products are building up. We need to resume lamb sales to France, and blood tests should be a priority. That is a summary of what farmers are saying to us.
The Committee has begun to consider the lessons that we must learn for farming policy and has already made recommendations to the Department’s vision group, including the registration of livestock dealers and the introduction of electronic tagging for better traceability. I have corresponded with the Minister, sending her details provided by an expert in foot-and-mouth disease, who says that it is a great disappointment that in the United Kingdom — including this part — there is no central strategy for dealing with a foot-and-mouth outbreak. That lack of preparation has left us trusting to luck for the prevention of a major foot-and-mouth outbreak. It is also in sharp contrast to the attitude of foot-and-mouth disease-free countries.
The USA has not had an outbreak since 1929 — why is that? In the last decade, the US Government have run three foot-and-mouth control exercises, involving the Department of Agriculture, the army and the civil defence forces. The whole country was alerted to what could happen, and there was a strategy to deal with it. Unfortunately, we had nothing of that kind.
The Committee has also acknowledged the suffering in other sectors. The food processing industry, livestock marts, the tourist and hospitality industry and event organisers are among those who received specific mention. The Committee has ensured that the difficulties faced by those sectors were also referred to the Minister, and she has heard from members of the Committee about the effect on those sectors. In passing, I will mention the livestock marts, about which I spoke at some length in a previous debate. They are a special case, and I have referred it to the Minister. She knows my position — and that of others — on the matter.
I hope that there will be news to alleviate the great fears about the complete closure of that sector of the industry. We heard in the previous debate today that there is to be a hardship relief package to take account of falling incomes. However, we must also look beyond this. Through this motion, the Deputy Chairperson and I hope that Members who have rural interests at heart will make constructive suggestions on how to bring about the long march towards the recovery of farming and the whole rural economy. We also need a constructive response from the Minister. Rural communities are looking to the Minister and to this Assembly for signs that their way of life will not be lost and that hope for the future remains.
We are interested in the buying-out scheme that has been launched by the Dutch Government under which surpluses that have built up as a result of foot-and-mouth disease can be taken up. Could a similar scheme be operated in Northern Ireland so that the Government could take over these animals?
I would also like to mention to the Minister that in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease 1968, Part Two, it is stated that
"Burial of carcasses is preferable to burning. When burning is unavoidable there is as yet no better means than making a pyre than with coal and wood"
Is it the view of the Minister’s Department that burial is preferable to burning? Would she like to comment on that?
This is a time of crisis for us, especially because our economy, unlike the economy of Scotland, Wales or England, is an agricultural economy. If farming does well, the country does well. If farming goes down, the country goes down. If farming fails, the country fails, and so we have a responsibility to see that this industry does not go down, that it is not lost to us, that there is a future for the young people who want to engage in it and that there is a comfortable retirement for those who have borne the burden and the heat of the day. It is a difficult time and a time of crisis, but mountains are made to be climbed up and over. We have to face this mountain, and by the help of Almighty God I believe that we will get over the top of this peak.

Ms Jane Morrice: I call Mr James Leslie.

Mr James Leslie: Madam Deputy Speaker, you have not stated a time limit for speeches.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you, Mr Leslie, for pointing out my omission. Given the number of Members who have asked to speak and the amount of time available, I must ask Members to restrict their contributions to five minutes.

Mr James Leslie: I wish that I had not asked.

Mr P J Bradley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Who recommends the allotted time for speeches and who may deliver them? This is probably the most important debate to take place in this Chamber since the Assembly’s inception. To restrict the length of Members’ speeches to five minutes and to limit the debate to two hours is to ignore the real problem that exists.

Ms Jane Morrice: As Members know, the Business Committee sets the debating time for each motion, and the Speaker, depending on the number of names that come forward, divides up that time accordingly. My aim is obviously to facilitate as many Members as possible, because there is great demand from Members to speak on this motion. The Business Committee has restricted the length of the debate to two hours, and this is why Members’ speeches must be limited to five minutes.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Northern Ireland public is becoming increasingly and acutely aware that, as Mr Bradley said, major issues are being given a very miserly length of time for discussion by this Assembly, which sits two days a week and which is now on short time. I believe that on some occasions we are now starting at 12 o’clock instead of at 10.30 am. On behalf of the House, it should be brought to the attention of the Business Committee that it is not good enough.

Ms Jane Morrice: That was going to be my suggestion. That issue should be brought up by the Member’s representative on the Business Committee.

Mr Robert McCartney: It is being brought up constantly.

Ms Jane Morrice: We cannot waste time on this.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I delivered my speech as quickly as possible. I do not want people to go out and say that Ian Paisley hogged the time.

Mr James Leslie: I will use my four and a half minutes to address the future rather than dwell on the current problems, which have been well outlined by Dr Paisley and which I trust the Minister is acutely aware of. When we know how long the markets will remain closed, we will know what the cost of the crisis will be to the producing farmer. It is hard to quantify now.
However, it is clear that farm-related businesses have suffered an immediate and severe impact. Depending on when a reasonably priced market returns to Northern Ireland, it may turn out that farm-related businesses suffer more than those farmers whose stock is unaffected by the disease. It should be borne in mind that immediately before the Cushendall and Ardboe outbreaks, lamb prices were quite strong.
Looking ahead, it seems that the message is the same as it has been every time that Members have looked at this issue in the Chamber — production in the farming sector must fall. Current production levels are not sustainable by the markets to which they are being taken. The likelihood, therefore, is that the amount of land in production will fall and the number of farmers farming that land will fall as it was doing prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. My Colleague, Mr Savage, will talk about the farmers’ retirement scheme in that context.
It is difficult to see how significant changes can take place without a complete review of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I am relieved to see that Germany has started to come around to our point of view on this matter. That might change the balance of power in negotiations.
If one looked at Northern Ireland’s land and climate and asked what type of farming should be carried out, the shape of the industry would be different to the one that exists, which is heavily influenced by the incentives provided by subsidies. There is a considerable belt of countryside in Northern Ireland where the warm, wet climate is ideal for the nursery stage of the horticulture industry in which Northern Ireland is scarcely engaged at present.
New Zealand abolished subsidies and as a consequence discovered that a great deal of the product that it had been producing had not been making the best use of the land and climate. That took 10 to 15 years to emerge. There are lessons there for Northern Ireland.
In that marginal land — and I reflect on my own constituency of North Antrim, with its north coast and the Glens of Antrim — it is essential that any future plans involve an integrated approach between the planning authority and rural development. I would like to see planning policy favouring farm diversification at the expense of irrelevant and damaging development. Sometimes that relationship is misunderstood.
In England it is virtually impossible to get planning permission to build a new dwelling in the countryside. That is why farm conversions are so popular. When one goes to the highlands of Scotland one will see scarcely any new buildings. The Scots are preserving the integrity of the landscape, because that is the amenity that attracts the visitors. If we permit widespread development along the coastline, we will cut the farmer off at the knees, because he might wish to enter the bed-and-breakfast industry by converting buildings for accommodation use.
In reality, that is more expensive than new build. Developers can completely overdevelop our coastline, and they are detracting from its aesthetic attraction. If we are not careful we will cut out the opportunity for diversification before we are able to consider it properly. I continually draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of the Environment. Finally, there are good prospects for farm-based enterprises, but the prospects are less good for farming-based enterprises.

Mr P J Bradley: I support the motion. By the end of the debate I hope that the ongoing additions to the financial problems of our farmers as a result of foot-and-mouth disease will have been highlighted to maximum effect. I hope that we will get the necessary attention needed to resolve the crisis being experienced by this sector of rural society. The motion calls on the Executive to play its part in the compensatory programme that, I hope, will be advanced as a result of our deliberations.
I wish to direct my opening remarks to the Minister for Social Development and the role that his Department has to play in providing part of the solution that is needed urgently. Following the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the related financial problems that came in its wake, the build-up of hardship has brought a new and wider dimension to the stress being experienced in farming households. The financial problems have now escalated into those of social need.
The problems being experienced in recent months on our farms due to lack of working capital have now been overtaken by the lack of ready cash needed to put bread and butter on the table and for making essential everyday purchases. The outdoor cash crisis on the farm has now entered the family home. It has become a major issue, and the Social Security Agency has an immediate and significant role to play. I was encouraged to read the agency’s commitment in its declared objectives in the ‘Strategic and Business Plan for 2001-04’. The agency’s main aim is written in large bold print in the centre of page 11. The agency aims to give
"The RIGHT support to. The RIGHT people at. The RIGHT time. EVERY TIME."
It goes without saying that farmers fit into that category perfectly. Therefore, I call on the Minister for Social Development to put together a team of advisers immediately who will visit farming families in difficulties and advise them about the level of help on offer from the Department. Traditionally, farmers have had little or no contact with social security offices. Many of them would not even know where the nearest local office is, or the role that it plays towards those in need.
On page 39 of the ‘Strategic and Business Plan’ — in the section on service standards — the agency offers to provide at least one telephone number to deal with related enquiries to its offices. I suggest that a helpline for farmers — if one does not already exist — might be worth consideration.
It is difficult for those who are removed from the current problems on our farm holdings to comprehend fully the stress in the family home when the farmgate is closed and when the doors are locked for the night. The absence of ready cash is impossible for those who do not have the problem to understand fully. In normal times it was no problem to provide money for children’s school trips, and there was always money available to respond to a "top-up" call from a student son or daughter who was living away from home, or for prescriptions to meet the family’s medical requisites. In other words there was always a "roughness", as they say in the country, to meet the foreseen and unforeseen needs of the day. It is to be regretted that those days are gone, and it is the Government’s duty to step in to bridge the gap until the current agri-financial crisis is resolved.
I apologise for the repetition of this issue following the questions and answers yesterday during questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and this morning’s debate and questions by other Members. However, the foot-and-mouth outbreak is very relevant to the motion. First, the ever-increasing financial difficulties faced by our livestock marts have arisen directly because of the initial closure ban following the foot-and-mouth outbreaks, which was firmed up by an EU Directive. Nobody can challenge these understandable bans, but by the same token nobody can say that the enforced closures were other than as a direct result of the foot-and-mouth outbreaks. I contend that compensatory claims cannot, and should not, be fitted into the consequential loss category. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said that he would address this issue.
I suggest a pro-rata reduction on the rates bill matched to the open and closed days of the marts. Perhaps the banks could also play a part by putting a freeze on interest charges. Secondly, the Executive should, if necessary, seek assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to finance the cost of the private veterinary licences required by farmers prior to moving livestock. There is absolutely no way in which a farmer should be charged for complying with this directive or for co-operating with it as required.
My third point is not directly related to a foot-and- mouth compensation package. It is, more or less, a gentle reminder to the Executive that the many problems which existed before the foot-and-mouth crisis are still there and should not get lost in the commotion. I am concerned, for example, that the County Down fishermen, the potato growers or the Silent Valley sheep farmers might feel that their problems are being forgotten about during this problematic period. I seek assurances from the Executive on their behalf.
In conclusion, my opinion is that the greatest problems for the cash-strapped industry is the difficulty of getting the true situation fully appreciated and the need for greater communications from the powers that be.

Ms Jane Morrice: The time is up.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheannChomairle. I too must complain about being confined to five minutes. The Business Committee should have allocated three hours to this debate. It has allowed three hours for debates on lesser subjects.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue, but we can barely touch on the subject because of the time limit. We can try to get only a few points across, and I resent that. We must ask why we are in this situation. That is more important than targeting particular groups or individuals who are perceived to be to blame for bringing the problem into the country. The problem is a result of the push by multinational companies and others for low prices. That issue is not local; it is a global one. We have to grapple and deal with it. Do we want people outside this country to produce the food we eat, or do we want it produced here where there are proper traceability systems? Do we rely on multinationals to bring in our food from wherever with minimal labelling? Members should go to the shops and try to read from the labels where the food comes from. It is impossible. I have looked — and not only in this country. This relates to the push for profit and global control of food and everything else by large conglomerates.
Tesco made a great noise about its £1 billion profit and how well it managed its position in the face of farmers who have made absolutely no profit in the last few years. While Tesco would say in its defence that its profit was not only from food, that is what brings people into its supermarkets. It relies largely on that. In looking at what it can do to leave us with a base industry, it has a part to play in the current situation and in the future. It can have quality raw material here, instead of working with ever larger outfits and turning to other countries which neither have nor intend to have traceability.
I disagree with the opinion that farms should become smaller. Compared to those in Brazil, for example, they are already small. I quote from the ‘Farmers Journal’
"Is our insistence on keeping food prices artificially low as bad for the entire country as it is for the future of family farms? What is the effect on our health and the fabric of Irish society of the ever more intensive farming methods that are necessary to keep prices low enough to please the supermarkets?"
That is the opinion of someone in the catering industry. We have to grasp the nettle and decide what type of food production we want. Do we want quality food, or do we want to put up with what we have had? In the years to come, do we want more outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, more instances of BSE? We are at that point.
What policy failure of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development allowed the current foot-and-mouth outbreak to move from Britain to the island of Ireland? What policy failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) allowed the situation to arise in England, Scotland and Wales?
MAFF had an opportunity two years ago to install a state-of-the-art computer system which could trace and tackle foot-and-mouth disease. It was an idea from New Zealand inspired by the concept of stopping the disease before it became an outbreak. The computer system was not installed, and the money was put elsewhere. GB farm organisations are saying that — it is not something I am dreaming up. That is where the blame lies. MAFF therefore needs to compensate us. It is for the British Government to look into the matter, deal with it and pay for the consequential losses. Government policy failure at top level is the reason for our present predicament.

Mr David Ford: I shall endeavour to follow the Chairperson’s lead and keep my comments brief. I do not intend to repeat all that has been said so far, but I must refer to the issue raised by the Committee Chairperson — the matter of the livestock traders, the Northern Ireland Livestock Auctioneers’ Association — who have been closed down by Government order and who have yet to receive any compensation.
As MrLeslie has already hinted, some of the greatest losses are not being suffered on ordinary farms. With the price for milk there is enough suffering on farms that are relatively closed and away from the current disease outbreak. There are particular problems for those who have engaged in farm diversification activities and who have followed the advice given by the Department of Agriculture over the years. In some senses they are now suffering and would have been in a better situation if they had not taken that advice but had confined themselves to the ordinary pattern of farming. Most farm diversification involves a close interaction with people off the farms, whether it is a farm shop bringing people onto the farm; the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, perhaps through the conversion of redundant buildings; or provision of other visitor facilities such as an open farm, pony-trekking or even quad bike driving. All these activities involve bringing people onto the farm and create greater difficulties than if the farmer had confined himself to traditional farming activities.
It seems illogical that those who are suffering most are those who have followed the advice from the Department and have invested in alternative enterprises in order to maintain farm income and keep younger members of the family employed in the countryside. They have perhaps gone to the bank and borrowed heavily. In some cases, however, they have not even needed to do that to be in difficulties. Those people have done what they have been asked to do — provided employment and enhanced the rural infrastructure. They are keeping people in the countryside and keeping shops, facilities and schools open, and yet they are the ones who now face the greatest threat and the potential of closure.
Farming activities have maintained some level of income, although not what they should, especially for those whose cattle go over-30 months, those who are presently trying to sell sheep in Northern Ireland or those who are faced with the commodity price of milk. It is ironic that it is those who have sought to diversify, to be progressive and to provide job opportunities who are faced with these problems. That is why there must be a case for consequential compensation, and it must be answered by Ministers responsible to the Assembly.
At the end of the debate I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that she and the Minister of Finance and Personnel have limited funds available. That is correct, and that is why we must support any pressure applied by the Executive to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has his billions stockpiled for his pre-election boom, whenever he chooses to bring that about. Compensation for the foot-and-mouth outbreak will be a small share of what he made from selling mobile phone licences over the last 12 months.
There must also be a case for saying that we need to examine what is available in our budgets. I forget how many times between Christmas and the end of March the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced that he had found an extra few million pounds in his back pocket. There must be a case for looking at the priorities of the Executive and the money that needs to be made available to keep essential rural businesses in operation. It is my understanding that there have been some moves in that direction in Wales and Scotland — even in advance of movement from the UK Chancellor. If it is good enough for Wales and Scotland, it ought to be good enough for us as well. It is not acceptable that we sit and do nothing.
Finally, on the issue of welfare movements, the Minister has told us of the need for stringency. I fully accept that. However, we seem to be stuck in a dichotomy. A few months ago we were not stringent enough on those who traded in cattle and sheep, on those who brought sheep from across the water and moved them around, through mart after mart, within a few days. Now we are being excessively stringent on ordinary farmers who do not own every inch of the road along which they wish to move cattle. I ask the Minister to look at whether we are not being too stringent.

Ms Jane Morrice: The time is up.

Mr Boyd Douglas: This has been the most disastrous period for agriculture and the wider rural community in my memory. It even surpasses the BSE problem. It has been made worse by the fact that the farmers were beginning to see a light at the end of the BSE tunnel. When a scourge like this hits the agriculture industry it does not hit farmers only; it also causes suffering for all the reliant industries that supply the farming community.
As has been stated, one of the casualties of the crisis which has seen its income wiped out overnight is the livestock option business and its employees. To date, there is no means by which to provide compensation for this sector, but financial help is needed urgently. The livestock market is important to Northern Ireland. When we have no livestock market it gives cash-hungry meat plants the opportunity to increase their prices. They enjoy a harvest and increase their profits. This will continue until the markets are re-opened. I urge the Minister to do something immediately, and in any way possible, for these businesses in the livestock industry that are most important to farming.
Many farmers and their wives have diversified into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and other businesses, as they were encouraged to do. Now they find that their income is nil. People in bed-and-breakfast businesses are suffering the most, as people have been discouraged from visiting rural areas.
There is also a need for farmers to be able to move stock in a sensible and progressive way. Our first priority is to beat the disease, but we must also allow movement to ensure that we do not cause greater hardship than we alleviate. By allowing monitored movement we can keep as much control as possible over the potential spread of this disease. When controls are tightened to draconian levels, as they are at present, we see more illegal movements, with the consequential loss of traceability.
Many Members have highlighted the general problems faced, and I will not labour these points. However, the one area that needs to be explored more than any other is the movement of livestock — and even dead stock — into this country. The initial problem, as we all know, was caused by the improper control of imported sheep. This is something that must be properly controlled and monitored. We must ensure that any animals, especially those that are imported live, go only to the places allowed by their permits. Veterinary staff must ensure that this is what happens, so ensuring proper traceability.
Furthermore, we must have proper checks on animals coming into the country, so as to prevent, as far as humanly possible, health problems multiplying in our herds and flocks. Many animal health problems appear to have begun when proper border controls in Europe — and closer to home — were relaxed as part of closer European integration. The controls must be tightened once again in order to protect our industry. If we do not do it, no one else will.
We must also ensure that imported food meets the standards that apply to our own producers. Food should not be imported from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in the animal population, when we are making such strenuous efforts to eradicate it from our own animals.
Illegal imports must be stopped immediately. Reports of rotting meat in suitcases and blood leaking from baggage at Heathrow airport show only some of the diseased meat and products coming into the country illegally. The Minister should tell Nick Brown in no uncertain terms that we must not be made the whipping boys of the world as far as imports are concerned.
The Department is to be commended on the work already undertaken, but the Minister should help prevent the spread of many farm diseases by considering simple measures, such as the reintroduction of grant-aiding and planting stock-proof hedging with appropriate fencing. I support the motion.

Mr Robert McCartney: Much has been said about the immediate problems facing the farming industry as a result of foot-and-mouth disease. Everyone acknowledges that both the BSE crisis and foot-and-mouth disease were largely the product of central Government’s incompetence.
Dr Paisley highlighted the preventative measures taken in the United States and other countries to prepare for a possible outbreak. Nothing of the kind took place in the United Kingdom. When the outbreak first occurred, it was suggested that the priority of the Government was their electoral position, rather than a speedy and effective programme for dealing with the disease.
I want to talk about the long-term effects of this particular crisis on the farming industry in Northern Ireland. There are those in the United Kingdom who look on this outbreak as a mixed blessing. They see it as accelerating the EU policy that the UK, including Northern Ireland, is not to be designated as a food-producing area for Europe.
The extension eastwards of the EU will include countries like Hungary and Poland, large proportions of whose gross domestic products (GDP) are devoted to agriculture. Why should we bother producing food in the United Kingdom when it can be produced much more cheaply in other areas that will come into the EU?
There has been a policy to suggest that people should not be concerned about that, because farming products represent less than 1% of GDP. Foot-and-mouth disease has just accelerated a process that was already in the pipeline. Farmers in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom will be converted into custodians of the countryside, while food is produced more cheaply in other parts of the EU.
Now and in the recent past, the farming industry has benefited from subsidies and from some aspects of the common agricultural policy. People have been obsessed, to a degree, with exports. As agriculture forms a very large part of Northern Ireland’s GDP, that was understandable, but is it not a short-term attitude to take when the strategic aim of the EU is not to include the UK as one of its major food-producing areas?
There are already political and other commentators writing in United Kingdom newspapers and asking why we should be excited about farming. What is the difference between the farmers and the miners? The miners, like the farmers at that time, were responsible for producing a relatively minor proportion of the GDP. We could buy coal more cheaply from Poland, the USA, South Africa and other places. They question why it should be any different for farming, given that food can be bought more cheaply from other places. Why should the farmers not fall into line with the programme designed for the United Kingdom within the EU? Under this programme, the UK is seen as a centre for tourism, entertainment and service industries but not for farming. That is why the farmer, in the future, is to be the custodian of the countryside.
The farming industry should look very carefully at the behaviour of central Government. The central Government do not care very much about how farming in Northern Ireland is affected because, although farming in Northern Ireland accounts for 6% of the GDP, it creates less than 1% in the UK. Although we are most acutely affected by the incompetence of central Government, the issue is not one that wrings the withers of many people on the mainland. It is important that our Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a clear and unique programme for defending farming in Northern Ireland, because our industry is distinctly different from farming in any other part of the UK. Farming in Northern Ireland requires very special and effective treatment, if it is to be protected.

Rev William McCrea: Rural Ulster is at the point of despair. Ulster farming is going through another crisis on top of BSE, the Agivey fire that decimated the pig industry and the various regulations imposed by the European Union. Only Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK rigorously and vigorously apply those regulations to farming, while the rest of Europe just seems to toddle along. They make the regulations, but, of course, they also break them. Northern Ireland sticks to those regulations.
There is a wide range of farming problems with major financial implications for the farming community. Workable solutions need to be found, and each solution has a financial implication. However, the finances available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are very healthy, and a wise use of the multi-billion pound surplus that was announced recently by the Treasury will help the UK to recover from this calamity. Of course, that will happen only if the Treasury has the will to do it.
The short-term future of the industry depends on the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease. However, the medium-and long-term future of the industry will be assured only by the provision of a massive financial investment package for the defence of the industry. Consumers need to support local produce, and the proper labelling of Northern Ireland produce will help that. A fair price for the farmers’ products would help, since there seems to be a large discrepancy between the amount paid to the farmer after his hard labour and the price paid by the housewife when she goes to the supermarket.
This morning, Dr Paisley mentioned the difficulties faced by the livestock markets. The Government ordered the closure of those markets, and staff had to be laid off. I have been sent copies of some of the rates bills that are still arriving on the premises, despite the fact that the doors of the businesses from which rates payment is being sought have been shut in accordance with the Government’s order. What steps is the Minister of Finance and Personnel going to take to guide these businessmen, and what relief are they really going to get?
This morning I listened to the Minster’s winding-up speech in which he told us about the problems with passing primary and secondary legislation. He said that there is no statutory basis for introducing the type of rates relief scheme that is being asked for and that there are difficulties with accelerated passage. I say to the Minister that where there is a will, there is a way. The sooner the Minister starts the programme, the sooner that help will become a reality to those who need it. Has the Minister of Finance and Personnel responded to the concerns that have been expressed about rates rises, some of which he and his Colleagues unfairly hiked?
Because they were ordered to close, will the rate demands for the premises be deferred until it is known for how long the premises will remain closed? The owners are paying rates, and they are getting demands for insurance. The Minister of Agriculture is holding up her hands to show that she does not know, and I accept that. However, the Minister can pass this question on to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
Veterinary costs for animal movement licences should be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. There is no use in saying that it is everyone’s responsibility to beat the crisis when the debt-ridden farmers have no room to manoeuvre. I have consistently asked why there seems to be a different disinfecting policy at the border with the Irish Republic. Those travelling south are vigorously searched and go through a rigorous disinfectant process, but those coming from the South drive on into Northern Ireland.
Farmers who have had their stock wiped out by BSE and the cull are left with a considerable amount of costly meal worth several thousand pounds, but no account has been taken of that for compensation purposes. Those same farmers must lay off their workers. They are faced with the obligation to make redundancy payments, but they are told that they will not receive any compensation for this.
Other problems are also being faced. Pigs are overweight, because they have been kept on the farms. Nevertheless, when farmers take the pigs to the factory they will not get payment for the extra weight after the pigs come up to the specific demand weight, and, therefore, the farmers need compensation. The same applies to the animals that have been kept on farms for over 30 months and must be culled. There is a £200 differential. I would have expected a longer debate to get some answers to the problems that are faced by my constituents.

Mr Billy Armstrong: The issue is of grave concern to many people. It is important to inform people of how the disease came to the Province. The sheep were imported to be slaughtered but were not. Questions must be asked about how the sheep found their way to unsuspecting farms. If the handling of the sheep had been properly carried out and the papers that accompanied the animals checked off at their proper destination, I believe that the sheep would have been slaughtered at an abattoir, and Northern Ireland would not be in the situation that it is in today. We cannot relax our health standards — prevention is better than cure.
There have been four cases of the disease in the Province to date. What way has the episode impacted on Northern Ireland? If we are to legislate properly to control the disease, we must first make an accurate assessment of its effects. I have first-hand experience of them; two of the cases occurred in the Coagh area of my constituency of Mid Ulster. They are within several miles of my own farm, and it is still in a 10km zone.
Farmers in that area are in a state of shock over their loss of livelihood. Does anyone care? The days are long; farmers have no stock to feed or tend and no financial income. UK farmers are also in a state of bewilderment. Farmers now represent the largest occupational suicide group in Britain. Farmers do not benefit from a 35-hour week, nor do they have a minimum wage. Industry has long been deprived of protective legislation but not of red tape and bureaucracy. Farmers have been exploited at the gain of the supermarkets. Everybody likes exotic fruit from faraway places, but is health not more important? There is an old saying, "If you have your health, you are a millionaire". It is time we got our priorities right.
The personnel involved with farms and farm-associated enterprises are nervous wrecks; social events have been cancelled; fewer meals are being eaten in hotels; forest parks are closed; province-wide sporting fixtures have been cancelled; and the burning of cattle has done nothing to attract visitors. As Assembly Members we have a duty to give leadership during the crisis. We must provide whatever help we can to those worst affected by the situation. Compensation has been rightly awarded to those farmers who have seen their livelihood destroyed by the disease. What about the forgotten victims? What about the farmer who has sold all of his cattle to the abattoirs and the meat plants? He then finds that he cannot restock, because there are no livestock markets. Farmers need auction markets, and such markets are more hygienic than a lot of the places where farm sales are taking place.
What is to happen to my neighbouring farmer who has had all his animals culled and is left with a meal bill of over £5,000? Meal bills must be paid. Who will pay them? Will this farmer get compensation? I do not think so. According to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials, no scheme exists to compensate farmers indirectly hit by foot-and-mouth disease. I call on central Government to provide a package to assist those people who have lost earnings from all types of farm business because of foot-and-mouth disease.
Thankfully, to date, the disease has been rapidly contained. The use of disinfectant mats, the spraying of vehicles and general caution have helped to do that. We need practical solutions to deal with the crisis. I want to see a change in the present policy concerning the movement of animals. I recognise the need for caution, but I also see the importance of getting animals out to pasture as soon as possible. I would support disease-free animals being moved to disease-free areas thirty days after the last outbreak.
The EU has closed all auction markets. That is a big problem. We need auction markets, and they should be reopened. There is only one way to achieve that, and that is for us to have a disease-free area. When that happens, auction markets will again open.
Serious animal welfare problems can be seen already, so we need to introduce an animal welfare movement scheme to alleviate this problem. Farmers are the stewards of the land, and Northern Ireland farmers are among the best in the world. The sooner the agriculture industry is revived, the better it will be for all dependent industries. I look forward to the day that the industry thrives again and the Province as a whole is better off.

Mr John Dallat: I agree that the Executive have an important role to play in addressing the problems of farming and rural communities, as they have in all aspects of life. I am pleased that this fact is acknowledged in the motion from the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, Rev Ian Paisley. It would be nice if the two DUP Ministers would join their Colleagues on the Executive and help to deal with the problem. In time, perhaps they will.
The families directly affected by foot-and-mouth disease are a special case, and while they will receive compensation for their losses, it is freely accepted that the fall-out from such losses of stock, built up over many years, will have an impact for years to come. It has been suggested that some farmers may never recover, and had we still been living under direct rule, that would have been the case. However, with our Assembly we can do something, and the public expects us to.
Farmers need compensation for their loss of earnings. However, there must be a holistic approach to the economic needs of the rural community. There must be massive reinvestment, structured not simply to make up for the effects of foot-and-mouth disease but to regenerate the entire countryside.
It is often said that when the farming community catches a cold, the rural community gets flu. How much worse it is then when there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It is at times like this that we begin to realise just how dependent our economy is on the farming community. The ripple effect is quite startling.
Foot-and-mouth disease has had a profound effect on mainstream tourism, as Sir Reg Empey and others have pointed out. However, very little has been said about the downturn in rural tourism. Rural tourism is fundamental to the economic regeneration of many communities and plays an increasing part in rural diversification. With the fall-off in visitors from abroad and the closure of visitor centres, forest parks and angling and equestrian centres, rural tourism has come to a virtual standstill. Shops in small towns, already reeling from the uncontrolled development of out-of-town shopping centres cannot afford to go through the economic slump that has been caused as a result of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. They are facing serious cash-flow problems.
It is only at a time like this that we realise just how many people are involved in a wide range of industries in rural communities dependent, to some degree, on farming. There are many cogs in the economic wheel, and they are all inter-dependent. Many of them have already been referred to, so I will not repeat what has been already said, but I support the pleas for help. Nothing good can come out of the foot-and-mouth outbreak other than perhaps a realisation that farming is much more important to the economic well-being of the community than has been previously thought.
We have heard often today of the interdependence of different segments of our economy. That is welcome. Out of this crisis there may come some good. For too long, we have not fully appreciated just how much we depend on each other. I have no doubt that the Executive will address that problem and do everything possible to obtain additional resources from Britain and from Europe. As time passes, the economy will recover. The farming ship can be refloated, provided everyone is rising on the tide of recovery together.
Perhaps the Agriculture Committee has not spent enough time discussing rural development per se, and that has been a mistake. We can now move forward with greater maturity and a sense of just how important the whole rural community is. Let us never forget that.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the sterling work done by the Minister of Agriculture and her staff. Indeed, most people have behaved with honour and integrity during this crisis. I have to say with regret, however, that the scurrilous claim made by Rev Dr William McCrea — that animals affected by foot- and-mouth might be buried on the farm of the Donnelly family at Ardboe — was nothing short of an absolute scandal, for which he has still to apologise. Others also tried to make political capital out of this disaster, but surely that was the worst example. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that. Let us hope that the Executive will support the Minister fully in the demands that she will be required to make for additional resources. I believe that they will do their best, and they have my support. I support the motion.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter. The social effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the farming community can be compared to those of the industrial revolution on England and other parts, because people who were farming prior to the foot-and-mouth outbreak will not be farming again. The social effect that that will have on those communities cannot be quantified at this time.
As Bob McCartney said, the bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere will be quite comfortable with the plight that the farming community finds itself in. They could not have legislated for the farming community in the way that this disease has. To them, foot-and-mouth disease, in decimating the farming community, particularly in this part of Ireland, takes a thorn out of their side. Those farmers who want to come back to farming will be coming back on Brussels’ terms, and not on the criteria of local needs and local economic circumstances.
Many will be quite comfortable with the tragedy facing the farming community. I regret that we do not have the time that we should to debate this critical and tragic circumstance. We do not have much time to address all the issues that have been raised with us at local level. We do not have the opportunity to expand on the full effects that this is going to have on the lives of people in the farming community. I will touch on just a few elements.
The value of animals and the compensation being paid to farmers look good. People are talking about someone’s getting £1 million. However, let us look at the replacement value of sheep and cattle. They are going to become a very scarce commodity in big demand. We all know the economic consequences of a scarce commodity and a high demand: the price of livestock will be driven up. Those who are paid £90 to £135 compensation for ewes today will not be able to replace them at that price. The same applies to cattle.
What about those farmers who have lost their dairy herds and do not have their creamery cheque coming in every week? If they want to re-engage in dairy farming, they will have to wait a long time for another creamery cheque. Indeed, they will have to wait a long time to be able to replace the herds that they have lost due to the foot-and-mouth plague.
There is also the question raised by some in the farming community of the delay in payments. In addition, there is the question of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety requiring some farmers to produce evidence of their earnings over the last 15 months. This compares unfavourably with the package for farmers in the rest of Ireland who lost their animals because of foot-and-mouth disease.
There are also concerns about the slaughter of healthy animals. However, we cannot discuss all these issues in the short time that is available to us. People in Moyle — an area that has the highest unemployment rate in the North of Ireland — have no means of earning a livelihood other than farming. They have earned their livelihood through farming for generations and are now unemployed with nowhere else to go for employment. They are suffering grievously. Compassion and charity ought to be extended to those in the farming community who are suffering rather than the concept of a witch-hunt.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Paul Berry: I support the motion, and I congratulate those responsible for bringing this very important motion to the Chamber today. This is one of the most important issues that have been debated in this Chamber since its establishment. Many farmers, as the wording of the motion reflects, have sacrificed much and are facing great hardship at this difficult time.
Boyd Douglas, my Colleague representing East Londonderry, focused on the issue that I was going to focus on in this debate — that of imported animals. As Members, and the Minister, will be aware, I represent the area where the foot-and-mouth outbreak first commenced in this country — the area of Meigh. There are many deep concerns in the south Armagh area, especially about the illegal movement of sheep and the money that has been wasted in past years because of that illegal movement. I want to know from the Minister what the Department and the Executive intend to do about the subsidy collectors. I do not call these people who have been wasting public money for years "farmers"; I call them "subsidy collectors". They have being acting illegally in south Armagh and across the country for years. What does the Department intend to do about these people?
What measures does the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have in place to deal with the issue of smuggling? This is an issue that the Public Accounts Committee is going to have to zoom in on closely, because money is being wasted. All the farmers in south Armagh are not carrying out this activity. I stress that. There are many decent farmers in south Armagh, from both sides of the community, who have been affected. The ridiculous behaviour and illegal activities of some people have put the brakes on this Province — not only on the agriculture industry but also on tourism and businesses across the country.
There are many questions that must be asked today. Indeed, they have already been asked by many Members. There were concerns in the Newry Divisional Veterinary Office in the middle of March that the numbers of sheep that were claimed for did not match the number of sheep that were being culled. I want the Minister to tell us exactly the number of sheep premium claims measured against the actual number of sheep culled. That is an issue that must be cleared up and that the Minister must address.
I am not saying that the Minister has been turning a blind eye to this, because she has been very critical of people who have been acting illegally in the south Armagh area. There have been concerns in that area since the cull commenced. A veterinary officer removed members of the grants and subsidy inspection unit in the Newry area from the cull site.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a leasCheann Comhairle. The motion states
"That this Assembly acknowledges the sacrifice made by, and hardship caused to, farmers, their families and the wider rural community in responding to the Executive’s policies and guidance regarding foot-and-mouth disease".
I do not see how Mr Berry’s contribution is adding to the debate.

Ms Jane Morrice: Members should keep to the motion.

Mr Paul Berry: Hardship and stress have been caused by the illegal movement of sheep and the people in south Armagh that Sinn Féin/IRA are very close to. That is what I am addressing. There is anxiety in south Armagh and across the country because foot-and-mouth disease has entered the Province. It is because of the Republician movement in south Armagh that there is this anxiety — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The motion asks for action to alleviate the difficulties as quickly and imaginatively as possible. Will the Member keep to this point?

Mr Paul Berry: I will continue with the points that I am raising, because they are very important. If the Department is not addressing these issues and if we, as Assembly Members, are not allowed to raise these serious issues that have occurred in south Armagh, then the last one leaving this Building can turn out the lights. There are serious issues here that must be addressed.
A veterinary officer removed the grants and subsidy division staff from the cull site in Newry, because fraud was being overlooked. Grants and subsidy division staff were inspecting vehicles that were going through and were finding inaccuracies and discrepancies in that smuggling was taking place in those vehicles. One individual was confronted on 2 April, and he was removed from the cull site—[Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a leasCheann Comhairle. There is no one running away from the debate. The Member has all the devices available to him in a private Member’s motion or any other motion —[Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. During some of the contributions a number of Members have gone beyond the motion. I have given a wide berth, because there are so many other issues involved. I ask the Member to stay within the motion.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is clear that farmers are in a position of hardship and are experiencing problems because individuals broke the law. There are prosecutions in place—[Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. My ruling is to stay with the motion as it stands and focus on the alleviation of the problems.

Mr Paul Berry: Public money has been wasted. We want to know what the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Executive intend to do about the issue of smuggling. The Sinn Féin/IRA spokesperson is annoyed because the truth is hurting.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I pay tribute to the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and the members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee for bringing the matter to the Assembly. I also add my tribute to the Minister and her officials and the various organisations involved at the sharp end of this crisis for the work that they are undertaking on behalf of everyone. It is unfortunate that we have so little time.
There is an historical context that others have mentioned. There were outbreaks in 1967 and 1865. I indulge the Minister and refer her to one of the minor prophets in the Old Testament, Joel, who had much that is strangely relevant to say on this issue. I invite the Minister to look at that. The Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee will no doubt be aware of it already.
I want to deal with the practical problems arising from this plague, its outbreak and spread, the containment measures that are being brought forward and the ongoing measures against it. The impact of this disease on the rural economy and the Northern Ireland economy in general has been profound, and in this morning’s debate we heard of many of the problems being experienced by those who are affected by the consequential losses. All farmers and associated businesses expect and need the assistance of the Ministers, Executive and Members of this Assembly to lessen the impact and to give valuable help.
Like other Members, I welcome the easing of the restrictions announced recently by the Minister in relation to the movement of livestock. I join in the call of other Members for the Minister to confirm that private veterinary fees will be met in full either by her Department, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or by the Treasury in London. Having spoken to many constituents and farmers affected by this plague, I know it is a very big issue, and I hope that the Minister will address it when she speaks later. I impress upon the Minister the need to ensure that urgently required measures of assistance are not impeded by red tape and that urgent consideration be given to the plight of those affected in all sectors.
I draw the Minister’s particular attention and concern to the plight of the livestock marts and to the precarious position of their owners, operators and employees. We will look to the Minister today for an announcement of assistance to that particular sector.
I also impress upon the Minister the need for a multi- agency approach to this crisis. Helpline numbers and the various necessary contacts that will be available to deal with the social dimension of this particular crisis should be made known to the general public either by public advertisement or by media campaign. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to announce a major co-ordinated plan as part of the response to this crisis.
Time does not permit me to say much more except that everyone in Northern Ireland accepts the need for urgent help to be given to the agriculture industry.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Although some of us are city-based, all of us in this Assembly represent rural constituencies; indeed our whole ethos is based on the rural community. We know that the impact of foot-and-mouth disease will be felt not just this year but for many years to come in both the farming industry and its auxiliary industries.
I have no doubt that given the opportunity and appropriate assistance, our farming community is resilient enough to overcome this fresh disaster and re-establish itself as a primary industry in Northern Ireland with its products hailed throughout the world for their health and quality.
The motion asks the Executive to alleviate the difficulties of the farming community quickly and imaginatively. Members must confine themselves to that. It is tempting to look forward to what may happen in the future, but we are talking about what can happen today.
I represent a rural community, both highland and lowland, and on a day-to-day basis I see the trauma and difficulties faced by the farming community. It is up to the Assembly to give that community its total support. We must address two matters — regulation and finance. On the day-to-day basis of regulation, most farms — particularly the sheep farms on the highlands and the cattle housed over winter — have exhausted their winter fodder and the immediate grazing fodder that they were on before movements were restricted.
The Executive must not slavishly follow everything that happens in Great Britain. As the motion says, the Executive must be imaginative in how they approach these issues. Farms in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain. Our farms are small and contiguous, but in many cases their fields are scattered. You do not get that in large parts of England. Therefore, the issue of movement is vital. Farmers are now destroying the land that was intended to provide fodder for the ensuing winter by overgrazing it — if destroying is the right word. There is an immediate projection of difficulty there.
In the few minutes allowed to me I can only highlight a couple of the things that we need to do. The intervention board — both here and in Great Britain — needs to extend its scope to compensate for the immediate welfare cull, and that should be done as soon as possible. Any assistance to the cash flow of farmers must be of immediate importance. Dr Paisley mentioned the rapid payment of premiums, and all other available and lawful subsidies should be paid on an urgent basis.
It is also important that a livestock welfare disposal scheme — as exists in England, Scotland and Wales — be established here. The scheme in Great Britain applies only to restricted areas. All of Northern Ireland is a restricted area at present, so this scheme could apply to the whole of Northern Ireland.
Many Members have mentioned the veterinary fees incurred in obtaining movement licences. There are many farms in my area that have bits and pieces of land and scattered fields. If those farmers were to fulfil their total movement they would be paying six, seven or eight times the fee of £30, depending on how many dispersed fields they have. It is important that something be done to alleviate that.
The financial cost of the disaster is not the greatest issue; there is also an emotive issue. Farmers resent having to pay for the implementation of regulations that were imposed on them on top of the other difficulties. The use of serology testing, particularly in sheep, may enable movements to be expanded. The farming community will need some pump-priming in the immediate future to tide it over the summer and into the winter feed.
I congratulate the Minister on her sterling work to date.

Mr Jim Wells: The debate has covered almost every issue around foot-and-mouth disease. Rather than repeat many of the points, I will ask the Minister to address four areas of real concern to farmers, particularly in south Down.
Is the Minister in a position to make any announcement about the payment of vet bills? I feel sorry for vets in rural areas. They are worked off their feet, but the last thing that farmers need is to find that they have to pay bills for inspections before animals can be moved. I understand that there is provision elsewhere for these to be paid by the Department. It would be a gesture of goodwill to the farming community if the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development were to pick up the bills, as it is no fault of the farmers that they are incurring these expenses.
Secondly, when will movements of sheep be permitted? In many parts of south Down the relaxation of the rules which were announced last week to enabled cattle to be moved is not producing any benefits for two reasons. First, in many cases a farmer only has sheep. Secondly, it is proving almost impossible for farmers to find land that does not have sheep grazing on it or has not been grazed by sheep in the past 14days. This morning I received a telephone call from a very concerned farmer saying that he has searched everywhere but cannot find any land which has not had sheep grazing on it recently or does not have sheep just across the ditch. When will that ban be relaxed?
I would like the Minister to address something that was suggested to me by the Rathfriland Farmers Co-Operative Society Limited. At present farmers are being forced to take small numbers of lambs to meat plants in Londonderry and Coleraine. One farmer had to drive to Coleraine with only eight lambs in his trailer. That almost wipes out any possible profit on the transaction, given the very low prices that farmers are getting for lambs. The Rathfriland Co-Op suggested — and this is a very good idea — that marts should be used as central points to which farmers could bring their lambs. A large trailer containing up to 300lambs could then be taken to Londonderry for the lambs to be processed. That would be a way of getting the marts back into some form of activity. It would also be a way of alleviating the problem of the meat plant in Lurgan that is taking very small numbers of lambs. Farmers from Rathfriland and Kilkeel are driving over 100miles to sell small numbers of livestock, which is totally uneconomical.
Finally — and this is directly related to foot-and-mouth disease, Madam Deputy Speaker — what has happened to the proposal for compensation for the sheep grazing ban in the inner Mournes? It has reached a complete stop because of foot-and-mouth disease. I fully understand that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has been preoccupied with this vital issue, but farmers in the Mournes have subsidy application forms which must be filled in by the middle of this month. However, no decision has been made on discussions between the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister for Regional Development on what will be done to compensate those farmers or at least enable them to put the lambs that they regularly graze in the inner Mournes onto their farms. If the Minister comes to some conclusion that will enable hard-pressed farmers to include that land on their claim forms, she will help them greatly.
South Down is one of the most badly affected areas because of the nature of farming. Some farmers are one step away from bankruptcy. I have heard some of the most appalling stories from farmers over the last few weeks. I have had to put some of them in touch with charitable foundations in England, and they have had to ring up and plead for money to pay the most basic of household bills such as the telephone bill or the heating oil bill.
Unless we do something positive to help farmers out of this difficult situation, which is absolutely no fault of their own, I will be really fearful about the future of many of those small units which were practically on their knees before this crisis ever arose. They are facing a dreadful prospect. If a survey were carried out in Northern Ireland, the results would be the same as those in England. Many farmers see this as the straw that will break the camel’s back. The situation is desperate, and they are looking to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to do something to alleviate it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am indebted to Dr Paisley for tabling the motion today and to all the Members who spoke to it and demonstrated their commitment to the rural community.
Since taking up my post as Agriculture Minister I have been deeply impressed by the resilience of our farmers who seem to have suffered one body blow after another over the last few years. It has been my privilege to meet with many groups of farmers in many different circumstances, and I have never failed to be impressed by their fortitude and courtesy.
Today’s motion recognises
"…the sacrifices made by, and hardship caused to, farmers [and] their families."
Nobody, inside or outside Northern Ireland, or in this Chamber today would disagree with that description of what the Northern Ireland farmers have had to contend with. Foot-and-mouth disease is merely the latest in a long line of what I have called "body blows". An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is a terrible thing at the best of times, but this time it has come on top of BSE, a very strong pound — with all that that entails in relation to foreign competition — and a succession of animal health problems and food scares. The foot-and-mouth disease situation is therefore all the more difficult to deal with.
As the motion recognises, the problems go beyond the farmer or the farmgate. I am acutely conscious of the impact of recent events, not just on the farmers but on the wider community. That problem is the responsibility of other Ministers and the Executive collectively, and it was addressed in this morning’s debate. For that reason I must confine my remarks to the impact of foot-and- mouth disease on the agriculture industry alone.
It is important to remember that today we are discussing the impact of foot-and-mouth disease, rather than the cumulative financial effects of all the crises I mentioned. The farm incomes of most Northern Ireland farmers are currently very depressed, but that is mainly the result of factors other than foot-and-mouth disease.
There are two classes of loss arising from foot- and-mouth disease. One relates to livestock which my Department has caused to be slaughtered as a disease- control measure. The position on that is clear — the Department pays the full market value of such animals. The problem arises with the second category — consequential loss. This can include anything from, at one end of the spectrum, the loss of a farmer’s income while the farm is depopulated to, at the other end, the loss of schoolchildren’s deposits paid for school trips to the country which have had to be cancelled. Specific issues affect the livestock marts which have now been closed for many weeks, first at the behest of the Government and, subsequently, at that of the European Union. The situation of these marts represents a particular problem.
As I have said on numerous occasions in this Assembly, the financial repercussions of meeting the costs of consequential losses would be enormous. Even if the Government make just a slight move in that direction, we will come under immense pressure to go the whole way. For that reason it is not current UK Government policy to pay compensation for consequential losses. If that changes, however, Members can rest assured that I will press for the necessary additional funding to be made available to Northern Ireland to allow us to make similar payments.
The other constraint on me, as Minister of Agriculture, is the need to comply with EU law on the provision of cash aid to farmers. I have to obtain EU state aids approval before I grant any cash aid to Northern Ireland farmers. Obtaining that approval takes time, and all the evidence suggests that Brussels requires considerable convincing that such aid is justified and that it does not distort the market. As Agriculture Minister, I find that my freedom to act quickly and imaginatively is therefore perhaps more narrow than some Members might imagine.
Time does not permit me to reply to all the detailed points made in the debate, and I apologise in advance. I will, however, try to cover as many as possible. Dr Paisley made many points about the impact of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and with hindsight I agree with many of them. He referred to the livestock marts, and, as I have already said, I have particular sympathy for their owners. I will do what I can to help them. I understand that the Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to this matter in this morning’s debate.
As far as movement controls are concerned, I cannot promise an early further easing of controls, since my priority is the prevention of disease. The earlier easements of movement restrictions were abused, and the foot- and-mouth virus has now spread to the sheep flock. My primary objective is to eradicate the disease. Farmers must decide which option is preferable — total easement of movement with the risk of spreading the disease, or to wait until we are sure we are on top of it. I would, however, urge people with particular and extreme welfare problems to contact their local divisional veterinary office.
With regard to payments, I can tell the Assembly that the Department’s published payment targets are being met, but we are trying to speed up payments. As for the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) payments, we are pursuing with the Commission an extension of the period during which farmers can make amendments to their IACS applications — including land changes — without penalties.
I intend to raise the issue of regionalisation with the European Commission at the earliest opportunity. We have to realise that we have no chance of regionalisation before the blood testing has been completed, given the distribution of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. I will progress the matter when the time and conditions are right. I referred to August as a possible date for resumption in response to a question in the Committee. I was simply saying that it could be as late as August — I was not saying that it would be August. If possible, resumption will take place earlier. We have to go through a series of blood testing and so on, which is not an overnight matter. It will take weeks, and we have to be free for 30 days from any other outbreak of foot-and mouth disease.
As to the issue of the burning of carcasses versus burial, I am guided by the advice of my Chief Veterinary Officer and also have to take account of environmental concerns which sometimes prevent the burial of carcasses.
Dr Paisley and other Members also referred to the costs of issuing movement permits by private veterinary practitioners. I have taken note of these comments and will be reconsidering the position in relation to those fees.
The foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Northern Ireland has already taught us a great deal. Those of us who had any doubt have now seen the value of a devolved Administration. The situation has taught us that our controls on livestock movements were not as tight as we had imagined. Above all, we have learned that unscrupulous people are prepared to sacrifice the livelihood of farmers, both north and south of the border, on the altar of a quick and dirty profit for themselves.
Mr McHugh and others referred to the alleged failure by the Department to deal with illegal activities. The Department has not been remiss in any way in following up these matters. All reports of illegal activity are being investigated with the utmost rigour. I can assure the Assembly that any of our officials who see any suspicion of illegal activity at the ports act on it and have in the past acted on it. This is one issue which was publicly aired in an erroneous manner this morning. We have had success in dealing with this matter.
Mr Dallat referred to the carcasses which were buried on Mr Donnelly’s farm at Ardboe and the allegations made by Rev William McCrea. I deeply regret the additional distress caused to the Donnelly family by those public comments. I can now confirm that, following exhumation of those carcasses, I am totally satisfied that this was a routine case of disposal of fallen animals, and I wish the matter to be publicly known. This happens in the normal course of events on every farm. Tests were carried out at Pirbright on samples from those animals, and they have proved negative for foot-and-mouth disease.
I take the point made by Mr Robert McCartney about the review of the common agricultural policy. I regret the fact that Mr McCartney, having made his contribution, left the Chamber without listening to the rest of the debate or awaiting my reply to his comments, which were directed at the UK Government more than to the Northern Ireland Administration. Perhaps he forgot which House he was in.
There is a danger of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland’s being overlooked. MrMcCartney will recognise the important role to be played by our devolved Administration and by the North/South Ministerial Council in the development of a common approach. This will take account of the priorities shared by all of us on this island with regard to the agriculture industry, which is of such importance to us.
Mr Berry made remarks about the south Armagh cull. I deeply resent the implication that our veterinary division in Newry is turning a blind eye to fraud. On behalf of those people I want to make that clear.

Mr Paul Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will not give way. I have only 20 minutes, and I want to finish everything I have to say.
It is a serious allegation, and I resent the implication. Mr Berry may well be misinformed about some of the issues he raised. Mr Wells made a few points, and I have already dealt with the issue of the private veterinary practitioners. He also raised the issue of marts as gathering points. I am aware that the Republic is looking at this issue, but I am not sure if it has taken action on it yet. I will look at every possibility. I see that Mr Wells is not here either.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: He is at a meeting of the Commission.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will look at all possibilities for easing the plight of the farming community. However, I have to take into consideration my priority, which is to ensure that the disease does not spread, and I will take veterinary advice on that. I have heard what Mr Wells said and I will take note of it, bearing in mind that I also have to take veterinary advice on the risk of spreading the disease.
Undoubtedly other lessons will emerge before we are finished. However, I will do what I can to deal with those issues in the weeks to come. I intend to introduce measures, based on what has happened, to prevent further outbreaks of the disease in Northern Ireland. I intend to introduce legislation to ban the feeding of swill to pigs, given that this was at the root of the present crisis.
I will also impose a movement standstill on livestock to prevent animals being traded and moved within 30 days of their last move. It is clear that the movement of sheep from one place to another within a few days has had a serious impact on the present situation. It has made it difficult to find the source of outbreaks and to predict where future outbreaks might occur.
It is clear that the lack of proper identification of sheep was a major contribution to the irregular trading that led to the foot-and-mouth outbreaks here. Accordingly, I will be setting up a regime requiring the individual identification of sheep and pigs. This will have major implications for the industry and my Department. The financial implications will need to be addressed, but I am determined to proceed with this.
I will also seek to amend the current penalties in our animal health legislation to provide meaningful deterrents against illegal activities. I will, where necessary, bring our legislation into line with the changes recently announced in the Republic of Ireland. Finally, I will be strengthening my Department’s anti-fraud efforts.
None of these measures will help farmers in the immediate financial sense. There may even be some short-term inconvenience for them. However, in the long term, these measures will help to ensure that our chances of importing a disease like foot-and-mouth-disease will be very much reduced in the future. That can only be in the best financial interest of the farming industry in the long term.
I appreciate what has been a constructive debate. I appreciate the clear concern for the farming industry that exists throughout the Assembly and the community at this time. I would like to put on record my appreciation of the manner in which Members from different parties have acted in the best interests of the industry. They have, on the whole, refused to get into party political points scoring. I say "on the whole" because there is an exception to every rule. However, I deeply appreciate the cross-party support that I have been given.
The farming community also appreciates it. Our common interests have been much more important than the things that divide us and will continue to divide us because we come from different experiences, points of view, aspirations and allegiances. This is a hugely important issue for Northern Ireland, regardless of the political divide.
The manner in which the Members of the Assembly have been able to work constructively together, often despite deep political differences, is an example of the importance of the work that we are doing. I hope that it will strengthen our resolve to continue to work for the benefit of the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr George Savage: The fact that we are debating a major agriculture motion for the second time in one day is evidence of the seriousness with which the Assembly has taken the plight of agriculture. It is important to put on the record that the Assembly identifies, and is seen to be identifying, with the suffering of the farming community.
The Assembly must record its thanks to the farming community for the massive efforts that it has made to support the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Assembly in the measures that have been taken to stem the advance of foot-and-mouth disease. Its adherence to fortress farming has been difficult, but it has shown, once again, a great sense of public responsibility by acting with fortitude and courage after so many reverses in the past decade.
Regardless of political standpoint, the few selfish farmers who moved animals illegally for personal gain are traitors to all communities on this island. Those farmers are far from typical and stand out because farmers, as a whole, have been exemplary citizens who have acted courageously and responsibly.
I thank the hundreds of people who have contacted the Department and my office. I am glad that we have been able to serve them in many different ways and resolve the difficulties for many.
I place on record my thanks to the staff of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and, in particular, to the staff of the Minister’s private office who have worked tirelessly and in close co-operation with us. They are always ready to answer the many queries that we pass on to them daily and to seek practical solutions to many difficult problems.
I acknowledge the workers who have manned the disinfectant sprayers day and night. They are the unsung heroes of this crisis. I also thank the Minister for coming, week by week, to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee to report to us on the latest developments. She has personally kept in close contact with us throughout this crisis.
To ease restrictions on farmers, the Minister has spoken of the constant reviewing of matters while not risking further outbreaks of the disease. The Assembly expects nothing less of the Minister and the Department. Assuming that she has a range of available measures, the Minister should publish a possible timetable for the easing of the restrictions provided there are no further outbreaks. Such a timetable would give hope, offer farmers the prospect of light at the end of this dark tunnel and encourage them to maintain the practices that should, in turn, enable her to ease the restrictions.
Livestock marts have experienced difficulty through being closed for over nine weeks with no income. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development forecast yesterday that the reopening of marts will take place a long way down the line. She also said that the marts were now being closed down in accordance with an EU Directive. I trust that, given the importance of marts to rural Northern Ireland, she will not sit back and allow Brussels to dictate to us on that issue, but that they will work tirelessly to secure their reopening at the earliest appropriate stage.
This is one example of a time when imaginative solutions must be found. The Minister must come up with ideas, and if the Minister will say that the Committee would welcome ideas, I have no doubt that Members will make many suggestions. We would be willing to make suggestions, as we have done many times in the past, and I am sure that the Minister could respond to them. I am pleased that the Minister is willing to listen, but she must not hide behind words. It is up to her Department to come up with the solutions, and that is why she has a large organisation behind her and the Executive authority to implement decisions.
This morning I said that the crisis demands an imaginative solution, and I make no apology for reiterating what needs to be said. Papering over the cracks will not do — something far more radical is called for. That is why I agree with my fellow Members that a compensation package that is not just adequate but generous must be worked out. The package must take account of the capital value of the farmers’ losses, their loss of income and the consequential loss of income by others in the wider rural community. The compensation package must also cover related industries such as tourism.
However, I would like to go much further. As recently as last week, a ‘Farmers Weekly’ survey indicated that a third of farmers affected by foot-and-mouth disease want to leave farming. As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr Nick Brown, said in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ on Saturday
"Frankly, I am not surprised. For many farmers the foot-and-mouth disease has been the last blow. It is a natural point to think about an alternative future."
The Minister went on to reveal that he
"is also considering introducing an early retirement package for farmers hit by the foot-and-mouth crisis."
That measure runs along similar lines to those proposed by my own party, and I think that this is an ideal time to bring it into place.
I am a member of the Committee of the Regions, and at a meeting that I attended recently in Europe, many countries signalled their intention to introduce a similar scheme. Many expressed a direct interest in the issue, because Europe experiences the very same problems as we do. The scheme would allow older farmers to retire with dignity, a lump sum and a pension, while enabling young blood, with new ideas, to enter farming. This is the scale of the response that is needed to tackle this latest farming crisis. That alone would allow the farmers to receive what they are owed — an organised restructuring of farming with the support of the Government.
We must not allow farming to descend into a free trade free-for-all, because that would result in decent men and women being thrown on to the scrap heap. We want to restructure farming in a constructive and forthright manner. We want the farmers to keep the money that is tied up in the farms, and we want to make sure that the banks do not take the best part of that money. We owe the farmers more than that, and every right-thinking person would agree. We must forge partnerships with all the relevant Departments and signal strong Government interest in an early retirement scheme. The time for action is now. Many imaginative ideas about the future of farming have been given to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). It was mentioned earlier that farmers are to become the custodians of the countryside — countryside managers who would be paid for the first time to enforce Europe standards on landscape, environmental schemes, stockbreeding and countryside management.
At the moment 80% of the countryside is managed by 4% of farmers. As we heard from the Department of Agriculture, farmers will also be encouraged to go into organic farming. In the future, farming here must be more and more about quality and the pursuit of high-value niche markets in sophisticated, rich marketplaces to meet the low cost and low overhead threat from the East European countries that will soon join the European Union.
We must move forward. It is plain that Northern Ireland needs a new 10-year national strategy for agriculture so that farmers have, for the first time, a real sense of where they are going. We also need to know where the Government are going. If these elements are put in place, agriculture will rise once again.
The Minister referred to the introduction of new rules on standstill of animals and the individual identification of livestock. I hope that livestock marts will be able to play a part in that. Another thing that I picked up from the Minister’s statement was the anti-fraud issue. I do not think that there is a Member here who would disagree with the measures that the Minister is attempting to take. I thank the Minister for her contribution. Almost 20 Members took part in the debate today, and I thank them also. It has been the sincere desire of every Member here to try to alleviate the problems facing the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland and to get it back onto a sure and firm footing.

Mr Paul Berry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I request that you refer today’s Hansard to the Speaker because I intend to make a personal statement to refute — and I emphasise the word "refute" — the comments that the Minister of Agriculture made about me in her speech.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is acceptable.

Mr Gerry McHugh: The Minister referred to me as having raised a point about the illegal movement of livestock. I do not support the illegal movement of livestock, and I did not mention it in my speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and hardship caused to, farmers, their families and the wider rural community in responding to the Executive’s policies and guidance regarding foot-and-mouth disease, and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Executive Colleagues to act to alleviate these difficulties as quickly and imaginatively as possible.

Second Report of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Mr Pat Doherty: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Second Report of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee on its inquiry into the ‘Strategy 2010’ Report (2/00R) and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to implement the recommendations of the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
A LeasCheann Comhairle. As Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I have the task of presenting its report to the Assembly. Perhaps it would be helpful to Members if I outline the background to it. The ‘Strategy 2010’ report was published by the Department in March 1999. After its publication a number of economists and others voiced serious concerns about it.
One example of the criticisms made at the time would be those concerning the consultation process. It was because of the concerns raised about ‘Strategy 2010’ that our Committee, in January, decided that it should be the subject of our first major inquiry.
The terms of reference were
"To examine the current recommendations detailed in the Strategy 2010 report;
To ascertain the extent to which a number of these recommendations have already been implemented or initiated;
To examine the original objectives for the Economic Development Strategy Review to determine if they were sufficiently wide ranging and to ascertain whether they have been achieved;
To examine recent critiques of the report by economic commentators and relevant organisations and assess the validity of any criticism of the report;
To examine alternative proposals to the Strategy 2010 report; and
To report to the Assembly making recommendations to the Department and/or others on actions which would improve on the recommendations made in the report and make a positive contribution to the economy in Northern Ireland."
When we set out on the inquiry we did not anticipate the magnitude of the task that we had taken on. This has been a lengthy and wide-ranging inquiry. The Committee received written submissions from 58 organisations and individuals. We held 45 oral evidence sessions, which covered a wide range of bodies including the Department, the public sector, trade unions, business associations, district councils, education and community groups. Three of the oral evidence sessions were held outside Parliament Buildings at Queen’s University, Moyle District Council and Strabane District Council. The Committee was almost overwhelmed by the volume and the quality of the evidence received.
We wish to place on record our extreme gratitude to all of those who submitted oral and written evidence. The evidence helped inform, to a large extent, the many important recommendations we make in our report.
One of the major criticisms of ‘Strategy 2010’ related to the consultation process. There was a distinct lack of a structured process in which constructive comments could have been made and taken account of. The lack of consultation led to confusion about the status of the ‘Strategy 2010’ report. People did not know whether it was an implementation document or a first draft to be modified in the light of debate. The Committee feels that the ‘Strategy 2010’ report should have been prepared in a context in which it was clearly intended for open discussion by groups representing all areas of society.
In any major strategic initiative the policy maker should only proceed to implementation stage after the most exhaustive consultation has taken place. The Committee believes it has now rectified the flaws in the consultation process, given the many public evidence sessions we held.
There were other criticisms of the report. These included the fact that there were too many unconstructed and unprioritised recommendations — 62 in all. It was also said that there was a lack of any attempt to link the recommendations to the targets and that there were targets missing in the report — for example, on productivity growth, public sector research and development and tourism. There were criticisms of a lack of any economic modelling which would have enabled baseline forecasts to be prepared and of a lack of any analysis of past, or current, economic development policies.
The Committee debated whether ‘Strategy 2010’ should be completely revised and redrafted.
However, we recognised the urgency of the economic challenges and considered that any further delay was not an option. The most appropriate policies should be adopted now and should be widely understood.
The Committee made 39 recommendations. These were made in the context of globalisation. Perhaps at this point I should say a word about globalisation. The Committee recognised that any economic development strategy needs to ensure that we are able to compete in a rapidly changing and global economy. We have seen how globalisation has led to a dramatic increase in the economic performance of the Southern economy.
The key to this transformation was the creation of the initial conditions that are attractive to international capital in terms of stable labour costs, financial incentives, sound economic, political and legal structures and peace. However, there is also a negative side to globalisation. It leads to an increase in inequality, not only between countries but also within them. With the outsourcing of low-skilled manufacturing to developing countries, inequality tends to go hand in hand with globalisation. That does not mean that it is either acceptable or desirable. The challenge for us all is to consider how we can reap the benefits of globalisation, while also ensuring that poverty and inequality are not increased.
It was in this context that the Committee addressed the specific set of problems facing the economy and made the many important recommendations in this report. I should make it clear that the recommendations are not a substitute for those made in the ‘Strategy 2010’ report itself. They are, in our view, the most appropriate to help tackle the challenges and opportunities presented in an increasingly global economy.
I will now turn to some of the important recommendations that we made in the report. We made two general recommendations — two key steps that are essential for the successful development of an economic development strategy. The first is to enhance greatly the role of the present Economic Development Forum. It should be responsible for the implementation of ‘Strategy 2010’ and for prioritising the recommendations. Its representation should be broadened, and it should include representatives from all relevant Government Departments, the higher and further education sector, district councils and a much greater representation from the voluntary and community sector. Its actions should be clear and transparent, and it should report on a regular basis to our Committee.
The second key step involves the establishment of a partnership structure. A truly inclusive partnership is essential to any successful economic growth. If policies are not supported by a sense of shared ownership, they lead to the social exclusion of those whom they leave behind. We have recommended that the issues of partnership should encompass four aspects: social inclusion, equality, social partnership and transnational and international partnership.
The Committee then made 37 detailed recommendations, which were grouped under five key themes: public sector and industrial development policy instruments, partnership and cohesion; the economic infrastructure; patterns of sectoral development; and the information infrastructure.
On public sector issues, the Committee was concerned about the number of issues that were outside the control of the Assembly, but which were having a serious impact on businesses and the economy, such as the low rate of corporation tax in the South, the higher road fuel duty in the North, the proposed aggregates tax and the currency differentials with the South. The Barnett formula should be reviewed. There needs to be a much fairer system of determining the North’s block grant from the Treasury to help alleviate the impact of these disadvantages.
The disadvantages that I have just listed would be considerably eased if the Assembly were to have control over its own fiscal policy. We must consider the advantages and disadvantages of having fiscal flexibility and how such power could and should be used to create new and essential financial initiatives.
Banks need to take on a greater role in encouraging local enterprise and should provide a clear, open and transparent charging structure. The creative industries sector should be granted a tax exemption to help accelerate the enormous potential for growth in that sector. Small businesses should be assisted by a system of loans guaranteed by the Government, similar to the scheme operated by the US Small Business Administration. There are enormous opportunities for industry through the green industrial revolution. More focused research and development strategies are needed to support the development of new technology industries designed to enhance environmental protection and reduce global warming.
The issue of a single development agency was raised by many of the organisations giving evidence. We support the establishment of a single development agency and have given a detailed response to the Minister on his consultation paper. A copy of that response is included in our report. We were encouraged that the Minister took on board many of the points made by the Committee during the consultation exercise. The Committee will, of course, be working with the Minister and also closely scrutinising the legislation which is required to set up the new body.
The Committee made a number of other recommendations relating to fiscal and financial measures, including tax rules, the single European currency, selective financial assistance, innovation, design, marketing and export, regional disparities and clean, green production.
In relation to partnership and cohesion, it is important that any sense of exclusion from the growth process be minimised for those whom the process does not touch at all, or touches only lightly. We have made a number of recommendations which will help to minimise any sense of social exclusion. First, unemployment is clearly still a major problem, and this point was made by a number of groups. The Committee believes that detailed studies are needed to examine why rates of long-term unemployment are substantially higher here than in Britain. The Committee was impressed by the success of the Fast Track to IT scheme in the South, which addresses the IT skills shortages while also creating opportunities for the long-term unemployed. We urge the Department to consider such a scheme.
Social responsibility incentives are needed to encourage greater social responsibility in business and industry with regard to their employment practices, their contribution to the local community and the environment and their approach to trade with newly industrialised and developing countries. Vulnerable groups require greater support for specialised training packages so that groups such as the disabled and ethnic minorities can have greater access to job skills and employment. There must be an increased focus on the recruitment and promotion of women in the work place, including targeted training for women, work place crèche facilities, increased access to job-share positions and greater use of family-friendly and flexible working hours.
The Committee made other recommendations relating to partnership and cohesion, including poverty, studies on the social economy, economic interaction with the South of Ireland, stronger links with Europe, support for the social economy and local economic development.
On economic infrastructure, improvements to that infrastructure, which includes physical infrastructure, physical capital and human capital, are central to improving the productivity growth rate and, in turn, securing a better standard of living.
There are serious deficiencies in the transport infrastructure. We need a massive injection of funding over the next 10 years in order to develop a world-class transport infrastructure in all regions.
There is a need for greater linkage between the further education sector and industry so that students can be better prepared for the knowledge-based economy. There also needs to be greater support for in-house training, particularly in sectors such as textiles, which are vulnerable to change. At secondary level, more needs to be done to improve the employability of students, particularly through career guidance, improved links with business and industry, a greater recognition of vocational studies and greater use of work placement in industry.
The Committee also made a number of other recommendations relating to economic infrastructure, including a strategic approach to transport policy and the commercialisation of new technologies.
The economic base has to change fundamentally if we are to compete more effectively in global markets and exploit the substantial benefits that could flow from closer integration with the southern economy in particular. We are currently too dependent on industries that produce low-quality, low-tech goods and have low levels of productivity. Foreign investment has a role to play, but it is more important to build strong, dynamic, indigenous industries. Studies should be carried out on how the economy can be transformed from one based on the manufacture of traditional low-value goods to one based on high-tech, high-value goods that will maximise the skills built up in the traditional sectors such as textiles and shipbuilding.
Policies should not only focus on manufacturing. There is an enormous potential for growth in the tourism sector. ‘Strategy 2010’ did not give sufficient emphasis to this sector. The new tourism strategic development plan needs to address the key issues in sectors such as hospitality training, marketing and recruitment challenges. Grants and financial incentives should be used to encourage the development of a market-focused approach.
The Committee made a number of other recommendations relating to patterns of sectoral development, including small-and medium-sized businesses, the local service sector and the bed-and-breakfast sector.
The challenge is for the economy to develop quickly the type of information infrastructure that one would expect to find in a modern economy. Databases need to be prepared that will allow comparisons with other countries and regions in Europe. These databases will then enable economists to develop models that can be used to explore the effects of different policy scenarios.
The Committee made other recommendations relating to information infrastructure, including data sources, a research agenda and an independent research group. The Committee accepts that responsibility for the delivery of the many recommendations in the report does not fall solely to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Other Departments have a role to play — not least the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment. The Committee believes that an expanded Economic Development Forum, chaired by the Minister and comprising representatives from all the relevant Government Departments, should be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations.
As Chairperson, I pay tribute to the hard work of my Committee Colleagues in bringing forward our report. I also thank the dedicated and hardworking staff who serviced the Committee. They were a great help and support to us. I commend the report to the Assembly and invite Members to support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: A substantial number of Members want to contribute. For that reason, Members should limit their speeches to approximately eight minutes.

Mr Sean Neeson: I want to thank our Committee Clerk, Cathie White, and her staff for their help in the compilation of this report. I also thank the Committee members. We are probably one of the hardest-working Committees of the Assembly; our commitment was such that we even met during the recess last summer.
It is ironic that as we are having this debate, demonstrations are taking place in cities around the world against globalisation. Northern Ireland is now part of the global economy, and it is against that background that our report on ‘Strategy 2010’ should be viewed.
‘Strategy 2010’ is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. It is not written on tablets of stone, and it can be improved upon as the situation and the environment change. Our Committee carried out an extensive investigation involving many wide-ranging interests from all quarters of Northern Ireland. Perhaps we facilitated the wide-ranging consultation that should have been part of the process when the original document was being formulated.
The report impinges on most of the Government Departments, and that is clear evidence of how this Assembly is now creating joined-up Government. I am very pleased by the public reaction to the publication of our report, which has come from many diverse areas. There are nearly 40 recommendations in the report, but I want to concentrate on the fiscal environment as well as on the needs of small businesses.
While ‘Strategy 2010’ has recommended that Northern Ireland should have a special rate of corporation tax in order to compete with the Republic of Ireland, the Committee has serious doubts about the feasibility of that. Members will be aware of my very strong wish that the Assembly should have tax-varying powers. However, the Committee believes that at this stage of the devolution process it is essential that Northern Ireland establish the extent to which it has control over fiscal policy and how that control may be used to create new and essential financial incentives. Throughout our consultations, the continual cry from the business community was for tax incentives in order to encourage new inward investment.
The Committee further believes that a much fairer system of determining Northern Ireland’s block grant is needed in order to help alleviate the impact on the economy of certain fiscal disadvantages. Coincidentally, when the Committee visited its counterpart in the National Assembly for Wales, we heard a similar plea. In fact, the Committee has now concluded that the Barnett formula, which determines Northern Ireland’s block grant from the Treasury, should be reviewed. However, Members should also be mindful of recent statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, about regional funding.
It will be an uphill battle, but this Assembly is only too aware of the serious underfunding of public services during the years of direct rule. The Committee, therefore, recommends that a joint delegation of Members from the Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Finance and Personnel Committees should meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One has only to look at the debate that we had this morning on the foot-and-mouth crisis to see how two Committees of this Assembly can co-operate to deal with a very important issue. The Barnett issue is one on which we can work together.
With regard to the small business sector, I reiterate the Committee’s support for the creation of the single development agency. The Chairman has already outlined that there is a separate annex in our report relating to that. However, Members must realise that small businesses form the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy and will continue to do so.
Last August the cross-party trade group visited North America with the Minister, Sir Reg Empey, and we were impressed by the operation of the Small Business Administration in the United States. Small businesses in the United States benefit from loans guaranteed and operated by the Government. The diverse range of businesses which benefit was noticeable, and I am pleased to say that there is a very low rate of default in the repayment of the loans.
Equally important to myself and to the other Committee members is the fact that that scheme encouraged many women into business. Indeed, the majority of uptakes were by women. In Northern Ireland there are not only problems for women becoming involved in business but also for their becoming involved in politics. Anything that the Assembly can do to encourage women into business should be taken on board.
The Committee recommends that the new industrial development agency adopt a highly selective policy to foster an enterprise culture throughout Northern Ireland. It is hoped that that will be addressed when the new agency is established.
I am also pleased with the Minister’s commitment to local economic development. At the recent seminar in Dunadry, representatives from local government were equally impressed by that commitment to ensure that there is a role for local economic development in Northern Ireland. The report is a constructive and positive effort to ensure that Northern Ireland can benefit from the economic opportunities that are out there. I support the motion.

Mr David McClarty: This is an important debate, and it is to be regretted that relatively few Members have stayed to take part in, or listen to, it. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee’s inquiry into ‘Strategy 2010’ has been in-depth and far-reaching. The Committee has consulted widely and sought views on all aspects of economic development. The Committee’s commitment in reaching this stage is unquestionable, with evidence- taking sessions being held during the 2000 summer recess. Many written and oral submissions have been noted, and useful and valid points have been welcomed.
The Committee members recognise the importance of tourism to the economy of Northern Ireland; it is nothing short of vital. There is a wide acceptance that there is now huge potential in this sphere, but much still needs to be done and to be achieved if Northern Ireland is to grasp fully the tourist opportunities that await.
Paragraph 3.20 on page 24 of volume 1 of the Committee’s report states that
"Evidence from service sector groups (hotels and tourism) suggested that their problems had been largely neglected".
That is something to be regretted, and it is hoped that the Committee’s inquiry has redressed that perceived imbalance.
It is of paramount importance that the problems faced by Northern Ireland’s tourism industry over recent years be overturned with a new vision of opportunity, high standards, excellence and delivery.
On the evidence that has been gathered from the tourism sector groups, the consensus appears to be that the island should be marketed as a whole. Tourists from North America or other far-flung regions of the world are less attuned to the fact that this island comprises two jurisdictions. It is therefore imperative that, in the first instance, we attract as many people as possible to the island. This can be achieved by flying tourists into Aldergrove, Shannon or Dublin. It then becomes incumbent on the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to sell the Northern Ireland product to the many and varied visitors.
NorthernIreland has a unique product. The Province has a distinct advantage over the Republic of Ireland, because it boasts the single most recognisable feature on this island — the Giants Causeway.
In volume one of the report on the ‘Strategy 2010’ inquiry, recommendation 32 states
"The Committee recommends that the tourism sector should be encouraged and supported with grants and financial incentives in developing a market-focused approach. This approach should centre on the establishment of a brand image for NorthernIreland and should encourage demand for shoulder and off-peak seasons."
The establishment of a brand image is vital to the creation of a strong and successful tourism industry. Further to recommendation31, the tourism sector should address key issues such as hospitality training and recruitment challenges. We all know that world tourism is a highly competitive market. We cannot offer a product which is basked in sunshine — if only every day in this Province were like today. It is therefore all the more vital that we offer a very market-focused approach that meets the necessity of shoulder and off-peak vacation opportunities. In this respect, events tourism is the way forward. We need only consider the success of such events as the North West 200, the Black Bush Golf Tournament and the Milk Cup soccer tournament. Running alongside all of this is the important, and often undervalued, necessity of high standards.
If we are to compete successfully in a world marketplace, we must pay great attention to the need to deliver a product that is on a par with any major tourist destination in the world. When we attract people to Northern Ireland we want them to return, and we want them to spread the word to others. This will happen only if they are impressed with what is being offered and with the standards and product-delivery mentality of those who operate in the industry.
The Committee recommended a massive injection of funding over the next 10years to develop the transport infrastructure in all regions of NorthernIreland. This goes hand in hand with the development of tourism. There is a need for fast, safe and efficient public transport. The need for good infrastructure and communications networks can not be emphasised enough in our battle to enhance tourism. The connection speaks for itself.
Finally, as the world becomes increasingly smaller to the extent that far-off parts of the world are now becoming commonplace destinations for the avid traveller, we must do everything possible to make it easy for people from those far-flung destinations to visit Northern Ireland. There is a need not only to market our product on new and distant shores, but to provide the means for people to get here. That means constantly keeping an eye on potential new air routes and destinations. What I have suggested, and the recommendations made by the Committee’s inquiry, are common sense, visionary proposals for the betterment of NorthernIreland in the years ahead. I urge the House to support the motion.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Much of the ground has been covered, but I will elaborate on issues which require further emphasis, filling in the gaps in earlier speeches. It cannot be emphasised enough how extensive this investigation was and how much detail we went into.
It was more than 12 months in gestation. The Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee mentioned earlier that we had 58 written and 45 verbal submissions. I began with some scepticism and concerns that consultation on ‘Strategy 2010’ was perhaps, as many people thought, too narrow. Over the course of the lengthy inquiry, however, it became obvious that, while there were some shortcomings in the preparation and the consultation, it was one of the most valuable documents I had seen. I could not help but draw the conclusion that it was a major milestone in the process of readjusting and reorientating our economy towards the twenty-first century.
That reorientation has taken place in extremely difficult circumstances. The Chairperson earlier referred to globalisation. Globalisation has been the name of the game in the last 10 years, if not the last 15. The whole world has changed and become a village. We can no longer operate in isolation, as we could perhaps have done in the past with the grants, the protection, the shelter and the subsidies. Businesses developed in such circumstances will ultimately be swept away in the globalised economy of the twenty-first century.
We recognise that in that environment Northern Ireland must be able to create an economy that will enable it to change rapidly in rapidly changing circumstances. Financial capital relentlessly follows opportunity and ruthlessly seeks out niches where it might create wealth, develop itself and return a profit. It does not hold much sentiment. In those circumstances we must be able to compete with, but equally to balance, the ruthlessness of capitalism as it seeks its opportunities. Some countries have done very well in this, and in our report we mentioned particularly South Korea and the Irish Republic. They have managed to create human capital to take advantage of the financial capital which was moving around the world and suck it in.
Financial capital does seek very solid quality and quantity of human capital and other capital stocks, such as infrastructure, in which to root itself. However, quite often as it does this, a "winner takes all" situation develops and inequality becomes the norm — not just between countries but in them. We can see this at home west of the Bann and in the Greater Belfast region, which has special advantages in contexts such as telecommunications, while places like Strabane may not. Equally, in Southern Ireland the Greater Dublin region is prospering and has the "Celtic tiger" by the tail, but perhaps places west of the Shannon do not see things in the same context. Recently I was able to look at northern Virginia, which has almost become a new San José, while southern Virginia is still impoverished and follows the traditions of the old south.
In the context of globalisation, it is vital that we ask ourselves what roles our Government, Executive and Ministers should play in the economy to enable us to reap the best benefits for our people. Our report justified my view that the quality of Government intervention is much more important than the quantity. In other words, the Government should effectively steer the ship without necessarily firing all the furnaces or shovelling all the coal.
Others have mentioned the fiscal situation. We need to create the correct financial climate in order to attract inward investment. We have to make the appropriate choices, and our public sector needs to have the right attitude and sense of purpose. We have moved far beyond nineteenth and twentieth century circumstances and into the twenty-first century, in which everything is about partnerships. It is about people bringing different parts of the equation to the table and everyone’s being better off. The Committee’s view is that it is important for there to be a partnership between the "gainers" and the "losers". The last thing that we want in our small community is to have one section which is well off while another — those not in a position to benefit from the advantages that change has brought — loses out. We have to create a situation in which social sensitivity exists.
Recommendation 9 mentioned innovation, which I cannot emphasise strongly enough. Our businesses do not spend enough on innovation compared with those of other countries. Whether it be the textile industry or others, we are too slow off the mark, and perhaps that is the lesson to be learnt from the partial demise of our textile industry. We still have a major opportunity to obtain business and employment in which we are producing quality for niche markets.
Others have dealt with the single development agency, and I commend the Minister for his efforts in that direction. I must emphasise that it was the view of most of my Colleagues in the Committee that the single development agency must — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask you to draw your comments to a close.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: It must not simply be recycled bureaucracy from the twentieth century. We are in the twenty-first century, and the agency has to have the teeth and claws to dig in at every opportunity. I would like to speak on, had I the opportunity, other issues such as equality and fairness. I could touch on the whole economic infrastructure for regional development. We must penetrate new technology and use that technology to create highly-paid jobs. The Minister has been an apostle of that ideal for a long time.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I would acknowledge the work of the Committee in producing the second report, and I appreciate the opportunity for debate on the economy. It is more than two years since the ‘Strategy 2010’ report was produced. We have implemented some of the recommendations; some are under review; some are awaiting action. It is difficult to know the original document’s current status. However, no work would be complete without linking the ‘Strategy 2010’ report to the transportation issue and to the regional strategic framework (RSF) document. It is imperative that all three are dovetailed and that we have a cohesive strategy. We need to devise or identify a mechanism to deliver such a strategy in the context of globalisation of the economy.
The debate is useful, and there are some issues confronting us. Reference has already been made to the challenge of getting this right — a challenge facing all of us in the Assembly. Many of the people we represent are waiting for leadership and guidance and for the vital decisions to be made so that they can improve their quality of life and have job security and stability.
The need for links between education and business is outlined in recommendations 26 and 27 of the report. The original ‘Strategy 2010’ document identified that a clearer focus is needed for the further and higher education sector in the provision of vocational training. In the higher education sector we have a clear academic route and some research and development, which is invaluable in supporting the economy. However, we need to have vocational training as the primary focus in our further education sector, as identified in ‘Strategy 2010’. This is something that we still have to work on. We have made some progress, but there is still much more to be done. As the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is not here, the question of the current position on this issue will have to be left hanging.
There is also the issue of the current system of career guidance, which I believe is vital in guiding young people and students on their future employment pathway. A review has been initiated, and an interim report was due in January. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot recall ever having seen that report. What is the present position of that report? If it has not been produced, when will it be available?
Links between education and business are vital throughout all levels of education even into training programmes. We must aim at providing a seamless programme so that there will be no dislocation in the education and training aspect of preparing people for work. There must also be a clear understanding that education and training must be geared towards the skill demands of industry. Some steps have been taken to bring that about, but more work must be done.
In my constituency of Upper Bann and in Craigavon, in particular, only one inward investment project was located in the borough of Craigavon in the period of the Northern Ireland Single Programming Document (SPD) 1994 to 1999. There is a danger that our TSN status might unwittingly deter some inward investment.
Areas such as this should not be disadvantaged or deprived of inward investment because of their position in TSN league tables. There is a further danger in that a rigorous implementation of TSN policies could affect adversely the economic growth of areas such as Craigavon. Setbacks to traditional industries such as textiles, in which jobs have been lost, could be encountered and a serious increase in unemployment could result. We should be careful that, in trying to bring about the equality issues and opportunities that we all support, the pendulum does not swing too far, causing a problem where hitherto there was none.
If local businesses are to prosper, they must have a level playing field and be provided with natural gas. The main urban areas in Upper Bann are Craigavon and Banbridge; however, it is not only those areas that will benefit. There will be a sub-regional benefit for the whole south-east area of the Province.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As a number of Members have withdrawn from the debate, I can expand speaking time to 10 minutes. I apologise for not informing you sooner, Mr Carrick, but I would have been able to make the revision earlier had the Whips informed me that some Members had withdrawn their names.

Ms Jane Morrice: I commend the report. I thank the Committee Clerk, the support staff, researchers and advisers for their patience, diligence and very sterling work. I also thank the groups that gave written and oral presentations. Their input was absolutely invaluable to our consultation process. I thank the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and the members of the Committee for making our deliberations interesting and very enjoyable.
It was no easy task. The territory covered by economic policy is massive. If social issues are also included — as they were — the task is nothing short of gigantic. It covers almost every Government Department from transport and health to education, culture and leisure. Very few Departments escape the umbrella of economic development.
The most important message that I want to come out of the Committee report is that economic development can never operate as a stand-alone policy. Economic and social development must always go hand in hand. The wealth of a nation should not be measured by gross national product alone. Other indices mentioned by the Chairperson such as long-term unemployment, child poverty, inequality and deprivation should also be used to measure growth so that we can never again fall into that terrible trap of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The success of this region must be measured as much by its quality of life as by its quantity of production.
The second message that I would like to give involves the culture that surrounds economic development. Very few Members would disagree that a fear-of-failure mentality has crippled our ability to move forward fast and has condemned us to playing second fiddle to all other industrial regions of the world. Countries as far away as South Korea, which Dr McDonnell mentioned, or as close as our nearest neighbour, the Republic, are shining examples of how it can be done. However, we must be prepared to take risks.
The aim must be to achieve a socially and geographically balanced approach to economic development, while learning and growing through increased co-operation and interaction with our closest neighbours at home, in Europe and further afield. Where do we begin? This report, as Mr Neeson said, provides a starting point by making recommendations that give the go-ahead for a thoroughly modern approach to the change that is taking place in the global economy. That change will overtake us if we do not act now and act fast. All we need is the combined wisdom of our Executive and the newly inclusive Economic Development Forum, which was one of our recommendations, to start weaving the parts together to drive Northern Ireland plc full steam ahead.
As Mr Carrick said, many people are waiting for guidance and leadership from us. It might, therefore, be useful at this stage to offer a few helpful hints on what we in the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition believe are the most important recommendations to come from this report, the recommendations that would, if implemented, help to push the buttons to get us to where we want to be. I will not give the points in any order of preference.
First, I would like to consider the issue of quality of life. We should begin by directing our modern industrial development to those areas that can contribute to the well-being of society here and on the global scale. I am referring to the promotion of clean, green technologies and life and health technologies. It has been said many times that we have a highly educated population, so why should our research hospitals and our universities not be the first to discover a cure for cancer or foot-and-mouth disease? Why can our old established industries like Harland and Wolff not pioneer the irreversible move into new and renewable energy sources in the area of offshore wind? Tourism should also be touched on. Work is already being done on this, and I commend that, but more needs to be on branding and the other issues that Mr McClarty raised.
Secondly, I want to look at the beauty, the value and the fun of innovation, design and creativity. Why can our reputation as the world’s leading textile manufacturer not be channelled into the high-value fashion market? Irish linen is getting there in spite of us, but it needs our help.
What about advertising, film making, television production, dance, music and sport? Those are all areas where we have huge creative, artistic and sporting talent, but they have succeeded with little or no help from us. Is it not time that we turned our attention to our talent instead of always believing that success can be bought only with a plane ticket? I am talking about our young people going abroad to find success elsewhere or investors coming in because they offer more than our local industry. I am not knocking inward investment — it is valuable — but we must start looking at the wealth of what we have here.
What about our young people? Our education system attempts to teach them to pass exams but gives them no knowledge or skills relevant to business or enterprise culture. A researcher in that area, Brian Cummins said
"Those who engage in policy implementation, including school education, must accept that they cannot remain as spectators of change but realise the valuable contribution that enterprise education can play in addressing current and future needs".
Further education establishments and schools at secondary and primary level are all willing and ready to play their part; we must give them a chance.
Another important area of change that was mentioned by the Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee relates to the increasing number of women in the workplace, the need to accommodate that and the changing family circumstances that that implies.
I mentioned change, and one area that we can no longer ignore is the single European currency. Whatever our stance on the issue, we must begin to look seriously at and prepare for any detrimental effects of the arrival of the single currency on our doorstep on 1 January. That applies not only to our trade with these partners but also to inward investment.
Finally, the promotion of business that treats its workforce with respect, provides opportunity for all, particularly the most marginalised, and makes a contribution to its community is a vital ingredient in the new modern, socially responsible culture. The value of the social economy and the non-governmental organisation sector must not be underestimated. The report gives the go-ahead for these things to happen. All we need now is the vision, imagination and confidence to make it all happen and to take the risk.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I congratulate the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee on the product of considerable work. In a sense a careful and politically led consideration of ‘Strategy 2010’ has, in fact, been long overdue. ‘Strategy 2010’ described itself as having some of the characteristics of a draft that, in due course, would be recommended to what was to be a new devolved level of Government in Northern Ireland. It is sad that circumstances, during the course of 1999 and 2000, meant that some bits of the strategy have had to, perforce, be implemented, or implemented in part, ahead of having a democratic debate through the politicians on what the strategy should actually include. The Committee has now — this is very welcome — begun the work of making economic policy more accountable.
The report rightly goes through a wide range of factors that are considered to be possible causes of a regions’ rate of economic growth. As Chairperson of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, could I also add that that Committee hopes, in due course and in some detail, to report on the contribution of so-called human capital, particularly training, and the availability of skilled labour and the contribution of that to economic development. Therefore there will be, in a sense, a dovetailing with the recent report.
‘Strategy 2010’ was certainly noble in its intent, but it was clearly characterised by a number of problems, some of which have been well summarised here today. Paragraph 9 in the executive summary of the report outlines the difficulties.
Let me highlight just one of those difficulties — and here I will draw on my professional experience from before I entered the realm of elected politics. ‘Strategy 2010’ was conceived as a regional economic development study, but it was constructed without serious consultation with economic experts or economists from outside what was then the Department of Economic Development. That is a rather strange way of going about devising an economic strategy. It is like the Admiralty designing a new battleship or aircraft carrier without making any reference to naval architects.
Of course, a strategy should not be an exercise in creating an abstract economic thesis. In some ways, perhaps, the over-theoretical sophistication of some economists partly explains why nobody wants to talk to them. However, ideally, the strategy should have been somewhat informed by sound economic analysis. In its process of construction there was not a wide enough and sufficiently well structured consultation process — as the Deputy Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has already said.
Since I have limited time, I will not simply list the many recommendations in the report that I am in complete agreement with. Rather, I shall highlight three areas where there is room for differing nuances and emphases.
First, in paragraph 11 of the executive summary there is a recommendation for a much-expanded role for the Economic Development Forum. Over recent years there has been a tremendous multiplication of forums in Northern Ireland, particularly in the business field that we are considering today. However, the economy’s most urgent need is for entrepreneurs and managers to start, build and expand companies that provide the products and services that the world wants. Action is needed, not simply more talking.
I would have thought that we could have been confident that a combination of the Committee, the Civic Forum and the business and trade union representatives on the Northern Ireland Economic Council, alongside the Minister and the Executive as a whole, would be sufficient to provide democratic accountability and/or sectional representation in the devising and implementation of policy.
My second point relates to the review of fiscal incentives — recommendations 1, 3 and 7, for example. I am glad that a review has taken place. There will obviously be differing views, some of which are contained in the various volumes of evidence, on the desirability of a Southern-style system of very low rates of corporate profit taxation. There is clear evidence of the need to rebalance state support to companies away from grant assistance to physical capital and toward "softer" assets such as research and development, management, consultancy and design.
Moreover, there is now little doubt — and evidence of this was presented to the Committee — that during the direct rule period, industrial policy often had the perverse consequence of subsidising and, therefore, encouraging corporate inefficiency. Taking industrial grants — from IDB, LEDU and so on — as a percentage of company profits or of value added, Northern Ireland for many years had the dubious distinction of being the most grant-dependent region in Europe, west of the former Communist bloc.
Recommendation 37 of the report relates to the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I entirely endorse the sentiment regarding the importance of economic research that is provided somewhat at arm’s length from the general administrative and Government machine. I have a slight, albeit non-financial interest here, since that is an area that I used to work in about 12 years ago.
I am less sure of the recommendation that is contained in the Committee’s report to add a regional and economic forecasting role to the Northern Ireland Economic Council, as economic forecasts have been carried out since the late 1980s by the separate research body, the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre.
The issue of independent economic advice to the Government, and by implication to us as Assembly Members, is the subject of an ongoing review. I am a little concerned that the report might be seen to be prejudging some aspects of the results of that review, although I entirely endorse the underlying theme of the value of and need to maintain independent sources of strategic economic analysis and good sources of independent statistics.
Notwithstanding those three points of qualification, I welcome this report in the round. It is a good start to the process of re-engineering ‘Strategy 2010’. Since 1990, Northern Ireland’s output and employment growth performance has certainly surpassed the United Kingdom average by a substantial margin, but the challenge now is to build, so as to continue and maintain that achievement.
I support the motion.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Like other Members before me, I commend the Chairperson and the Committee for carrying out a very difficult task and for the panoramic view they have given us of the way forward in industrial development and social well-being. I would like to think that it is not a wish list, but that it will be further honed down and developed into a series of enterprises that are properly prioritised and, equally important, properly funded to be capable of implementation.
It is in a sense a vade mecum of where we are going in economic and social terms, and for that reason it is a very important document. Dr Birnie has dealt with the origins of this paper, and I well remember very severe criticisms being made of the 2010 document because of its lack of external input and expertise from other fields. However, that can be addressed as time goes on.
One is not qualified to be categorical in any one area, but the question of the land border between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland is a very big subject given the differential in taxes and duties and the potential differential in coinage. How that will affect us needs to be addressed much more fundamentally than it has been in this document. It would be tempting to go down that avenue with fiscal flexibility, the Barnett formula and tax duties, but I must resist that because we will be trapped for eternity if we address these lofty issues. I will leave that for another time.
I have taken one or two areas which time will allow me to address. The first is recommendation 13 on regional disparities. This is a very complex issue, particularly if we are looking at a strategy based on a knowledge-driven economic society. If information technology is going to be the central plank of the strategy to dispense with regional disparities, IT education must be decentralised, particularly at university level. Graduates will naturally be the focus of most IT companies, and the only way to ensure inward investment in regions that have not yet received it is to create a local pool. Quite frankly, the current provision of HND and HNC at these levels may not be adequate.
It is important to address this in another context as well. The real meaning of wealth is well-being. Well-being is not based on economic factors alone, it also relates to social factors. We must create a new society in which that well-being exists. Everyone agrees that long-term unemployment is a primary issue which needs to be tackled first but, in reality, it is difficult to go about doing this. Recommendation 16 of the report notes that employers are reluctant to recruit the long-term unemployed. There are economic disincentives in social security and welfare benefits, and the skills base still needs to be addressed. In addressing the lack of skills, the report refers once again to IT, but we cannot all participate in this field. There must be other skills from which people can earn a good living. While addressing the IT deficit, we must also address the lack of general skills. Many of the long-term unemployed would not be comfortable in an IT-based job. We must look beyond IT, even though it is fashionable today.
I welcome the concept of a tax exemption for creative industries, a sector which could assist regional decentralisation. We have an enormous wealth of talent in the creative industries which we have yet to harvest. This is not just a cultural issue, but an economic matter, and there is enormous potential for export if the cultural industry is approached on a full economic basis.
The tourism industry was mentioned by one or two Members. In such a broad, panoramic paper there must be something that has not been emphasised — the potential of tourism has been under-emphasised. We speak about tourism all the time, and we all support the concept of boosting that industry, but we need to get down to brass tacks. A new economic development agency which has been set up will devote some of its energies to key inward investment in the tourism sector. However, the agency must be driven, it must be financed and it must have specific targets to deliver a strong tourist industry. If it were properly dealt with, tourism could become the second largest base industry in Northern Ireland.
Recommendation 22 addresses support for the social economy. The recommendation, and the Executive’s synopsis of it, relate once again to the local economy. The linked issues of regional disparity and long-term unemployment, which emerge once again in this recommendation, can only be dealt with if the local economy is addressed.
I do not recall which recommendation deals with partnership, but partnership must be all-embracing. It must incorporate all forms of representatives and elected personnel if the concept of inclusiveness is to take on its true meaning. There is also the practical argument that the more people you seek ideas from, the better are the ideas you get.
It is time that we removed the financial cap on local government spending in the economic development sector. This would allow local politicians who represent the rate payers — those who contribute to the funding — to make more fundamental decisions which address the market failure in many districts.
Referring back to the IT syndrome, the location of technology centres needs to be more dispersed, with greater emphasis on areas outside the cosmopolitan areas of Belfast, Derry or any other area that aspires to such a description. You can get away from that.
Unemployment is another issue. The only suggestion that I found in that synopsis was that the Committee would urge the Department to consider the fast track to information technology (FIT). As a group, the long-term unemployed are not all going to be accommodated by that. We must broaden the concept of how we enhance the skills and retrain the unemployed with IT abilities, and also with other abilities, if we are to tackle the long-term unemployment issue properly.
This is a social contract, and many issues will need to be honed down and developed. Each time a decision is made to pursue a particular priority, the financial resources must be identified and considered at the same time in order that the practicality of the implementation is carried out. These recommendations and their development should not simply be a wish list of things to be done in the future, without hope of implementation.

Mr Mark Robinson: I am sure I do not need to remind Members that the next decade will be one of massive change to the economic infrastructure of our society. The old labour-intensive industries, such as shipbuilding and textile manufacturing, are slowly being replaced by new industries. One need only look to companies such as Nortel to see how this is the case. All over the world this cycle of decline in the old industries and rejuvenation through the new service providers is being repeated. It is vital that we in Northern Ireland embrace the changes taking place in the world markets to ensure that we offer an attractive, competitive and first-class destination for would-be investors.
I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my own support for the proposals outlined in the ‘Strategy 2010’ document. The proposals as outlined in section 9 of the document are innovative, but they are also realistic and achievable aims which can ensure the continuance of the economic renaissance which Northern Ireland has seen in the last few years. I shall focus my remarks today on section 9 of the report, which outlines the recommendations of the steering group. One of the recommendations that grabbed my attention is contained in the skills and education section of the report, page 150, in which the authors recommend that
"A valued sub-degree level vocational educational programmes should be established."
In my view this has much to do with raising the value, both in the eyes of employers and of students who may wish to undertake such a course, of the current GNVQ qualification. The fact of the matter is that although it carries the equivalent value of two A levels, the GNVQ is scorned as a qualification. This is most unsatisfactory. Young people who take up these courses must be assured that their qualifications are of value and will guarantee them a fair chance when they do enter the employment market.
Another of the recommendations of the steering group is contained under the section entitled ‘Innovation’, page 158. In this section they say
"There should be a campaign to promote innovation and good design."
The importance of being seen on the international stage as a place where technological innovation and improvement are rapidly evolving is vital if Northern Ireland is to hold its own in an increasingly dynamic world market. The Government cannot simply sit back and hope for great genius and design to come forth. They must take an active part in encouraging companies to diversify and invest in research and new techniques, and the commencement of such a campaign would be an excellent start. The campaign could take the form of a charter mark as established under the previous Tory Government and awarded for excellence, or perhaps an incentive to the company proven to be most innovative and forward-looking.
One of the most interesting recommendations is contained in the section entitled ‘The Planning System’, page 178. In this section we read that the steering group recommends that the Assembly introduce a rates regime which helps to nurture small, indigenous retail businesses. One can only assume that by "nurture small, indigenous businesses" the authors of this document did not mean "cripple many of them with a massive 8% rates rise". The ordinary shopkeepers in my constituency remember who is to blame for this and no doubt will deliver their verdict come the elections. There is, however, much in this report to be welcomed. Many of the proposals are constructive and well thought out, and I have no hesitation in recommending its adoption by the House.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Committee’s report on the ‘Strategy 2010’ document and commend the Committee for the work and ideas on what it deems is required for the strategy’s implementation in Northern Ireland. This is an opportunity for the Assembly, its Committees and all the Departments to grasp what this Committee has recommended and to endeavour to see that its recommendations are implemented. We have seen from many previous Committee reports the need for devolved government, and this is a further example of how that can be improved on. It is a vast job for our elected Members, but after a 30-year vacuum it is a golden opportunity for us all to do something. We had the luxury of apportioning blame on others before this — we could blame the Northern Ireland Office and Secretaries of State — but now it is our opportunity to address the problems that really concern Northern Ireland.
I echo the Committee’s concern on the three issues where we in Northern Ireland are at a distinct disadvantage to the rest of the United Kingdom because of the proximity of the Republic of Ireland and the border. The Republic of Ireland has lower corporation tax, lower fuel prices and road tax and the damaging currency differential, which is a big problem.
There are 37 detailed recommendations, and a number are worthy of mention. Recommendation 12 — on a single development agency incorporating the IDB, LEDU and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit — will streamline the provision of aid to business and reduce wasteful duplication, which can only be a positive step.
On the environmental issues, I agree with the enhanced environmental protection. Industries should be encouraged towards clean, green production methods, using alternative energy if possible, and to work for a reduction in waste production.
Recommendation 10 is important, and business and industry should take note. The recent Northern Ireland Waste Arisings Survey Report by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) pointed out that waste collection, processing and disposal is costing Northern Ireland business more than £45 million per year. Fewer than one in three companies are taking effective steps to minimise the impact of waste on their business profits. The environment is a very important aspect of our life, and caring for our environment will not only help to reduce the negative impact of pollution on the environment in which we live, but it should also save businesses money if they take the recommendations on board.
Recommendation 11 is an important step in recognising that the development of new technology industries can be designed to enhance environmental protection and reduce global warming while remaining profitable. In my constituency, the research and development of a biogas plant has been ongoing in Fivemiletown. That development hopes to have a number of uses, producing three saleable products — electricity, heat and bio-fertilisers. If operational, it will benefit the whole local community and the environment by recycling waste material. More research and development in similar environmental technologies would benefit the environmental and economic life of Northern Ireland.
Recommendations 31 to 33 will help build on our economic strengths in the tourism sector. Fermanagh and South Tyrone should benefit from this, as a fully co-ordinated strategy will help the overall aim of a partnership approach on economic development through a sustainable approach to tourism.
This should focus on a quality product and a quality service. The Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency has much to offer with the fishing lakes, boating and the friendly bed-and-breakfast accommodation — the whole historic character of the constituency. Through the implementation of this report, we should be in a better position to take advantage of economic benefits for tourism.
In conclusion, this report has the potential to benefit the whole of Northern Ireland. It should not gather dust but should be acted upon. I support the motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. As has already been stated, ‘Strategy 2010’ was published by the Department in March 1999 and, following its publication, serious concerns were expressed about it. As the Chairperson has stated, it was because of this that the Committee launched its inquiry.
I am a relative newcomer to the Committee, having joined it in January 2001, and at that stage the first inquiry draft was just completed. It was followed by a second and a third draft. I say this to give some idea of its scope and of the painstaking way in which the inquiry was conducted. This was of course in stark contrast to the consultation that took place on the original ‘Strategy 2010’ document. I thank the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee staff for all their help.
The criticism of the original ‘Strategy 2010’ document was that there were too many unstructured recommendations — 62 in total. The Committee has made 37 detailed and two general recommendations, but I intend to concentrate on the two relating to skills and education — recommendations 26 and 27.
The Committee recommends a system of education that releases the potential of all children, reduces the failure culture, improves access to employment through careers guidance, enhances links with business and industry, gives more recognition to vocational studies and makes greater use of work placement in industry. It also recommends greater links between the further education sector and industry, particularly with a view to preparing students for new skills to accommodate the knowledge-based economy, increased support for in-house training at all levels and reskilling courses, particularly for those sectors, such as textiles, which are particularly vulnerable to changes. These recommendations have the support of the trade unions and educational bodies. Courses within the educational establishment need to be customised to make changes in the workplace and the knowledge-based economy.
There should be stronger working links between the further education sector and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment agencies. We already have evidence of that when we see the Minister of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, Sean Farren, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, travelling to Europe and America seeking jobs and inward investment.
We support an economic development strategy that informs the education and training policy and its funding delivery mechanisms. For too long, colleges have been left to make provision for courses and qualifications with inadequate market intelligence. Partnership is the key between schools, colleges and relevant businesses in order that the necessary skills are taught.
There needs to be greater support for in-house training within sectors, such as the textile industry, which are very vulnerable to change. Even in this past week, we have seen further job losses at Desmonds in Derry. This type of training needs to start sooner rather than later, if we are to have a sound economy. We need to be proactive rather than reactive, and we need to monitor carefully the implementation of these recommendations.
To finish, I would like to highlight two other recommendations that are close to my heart. The first one, which has already been highlighted by my Colleague Eddie McGrady is tax exemption for the creative industries. This is a very important recommendation. We recommend a tax exemption for artists and crafts people in creative industry in Northern Ireland. At the moment, when we are talking about developing cultural quarters in all the major cities, this is an excellent recommendation and one that the House should support.
The other recommendation concerns women in the workplace. We recommend an increased focus on the recruitment and promotion of women in the workplace, including targeted training for women, workplace crèche facilities, increased access to job-share and greater use of family-friendly and flexible working hours. Thankfully, that is happening now in more places than it used to, particularly in hospitals, but it is something that we have to encourage if we are to get more women back into the workplace.
I support the motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: It is disappointing that we have had three major motions crammed into one day. That does not do justice to any of the issues. Each of them could have done with a full day’s debate. Many more Members would have been able to contribute.
The councils, including Ards Borough Council, made a significant contribution to ‘Strategy 2010’. It is important that Members reiterate some of the points that were made through that. Ards Borough Council represents some 80,000 people living in the borough, mainly around Newtownards. However, there is now a focus and a population growth in the Comber and Ballygowan areas, which tend to be dormitory towns for the Greater Belfast area. It is clear, even to the untrained eye, that that area is going to face some considerable problems over the next 10 years with respect to the inadequate provision of industrial incentives, despite the suitable location.
It is essential for the future success of Ards borough that attention be focused on the regeneration of industry and the expansion of the hospitality sector, which is pitifully low in the borough. We heard this morning about the problems facing the hospitality sector because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. That is a problem in my area.
Problems that may arise in the future will be linked to the increase in population predicted in ‘Shaping our Future’. The Ards borough will have some 7,500 new houses in the next 13 years, translating into 21,000 people and 14,000 extra jobs for the borough.
One of the areas in special need is Comber. It is one of the more popular parts of the borough for housing, but it has little or nothing to offer any individual or company wishing to direct inward investment to the area. There must be extra zoning of industrial land in that area.
Local government should have a direct influence on planning procedures. Local government is accountable and has a grasp of all influencing issues. It has been suggested that a fairly small number of industrial units, through which we could monitor the needs and requirements of the growing population and how industry should grow, could be created in association with Government agencies.
The role of local government in the development of its own jurisdiction needs some clarification. At present, the organisation of local government into 26 separate entities has led to a diffuse and complex list of priorities and goals. Clarity is needed in this area if inward investment is to be effectively attracted to all the areas of Northern Ireland, and not just to Ards borough. Local government authorities are in the best position to understand the needs of their own areas, and as a local form of authority they are best placed to provide all relevant information to those in the area who wish to create or develop business opportunities.
It is all well and good to have the relevant information at your disposal, but if it cannot be distributed effectively it might as well not be there. Local people must be able to access business development information and assistance without difficulty or hindrance. Local government is in a position to fulfil that task in a manner that is accountable to the ratepayer.
One of the targets in ‘Strategy 2010’ is to reduce unemployment from 4% to 2%. Is that achievable? Local government has a strong role to play in that and can help to achieve that goal.
Cross-border co-operation has always been surrounded by controversy and political expediency and must be approached on a practical basis. The thrust of the Belfast Agreement is to harmonise infrastructure and policy north and south of the border, but any co-operation with southern companies should not rise above the importance of co-operation with a company from the mainland United Kingdom. Above all, any relationship must be based firmly on respect for the integrity of Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the United Kingdom and the authority of the Crown here.
When this is established we can have a working relationship with companies from the Republic of Ireland in areas such as fisheries, forestry, energy and technology. In this vein, I agree that assistance is required to optimise co-operation between companies north and south of the border.
With regard to internal co-operation, I suggest that projects backed by local government authorities should not be adopted willy-nilly. The health and wealth of the respective boroughs should be the overwhelming priority when it comes to business development. There are cases where such arrangements will be of mutual benefit to those participating. However, we should not enter into such arrangements blindly.
It is essential, from an international aspect, that Ards borough be identified with the Greater Belfast area as opposed to the Down area since international companies will immediately recognise Belfast as a place for locating business. My Colleague Jim Wells will not be happy with that, but we have to look at what is best for our own areas. We also have to put it on record. On the other hand, co-operation with local government authorities on tourist projects may be of benefit. Down District Council, Newry and Mourne District Council, Ards Borough Council and North Down Borough Council are all involved in tourist projects on the coast of Down.
Ards Borough Council has suffered greatly as a result of the decline in the British textile industry. It is important to identify industry which could be attracted into the area. Such industries include technology and marketing. Some work has been carried out to create a market for high quality linens and textiles, which are outside the previous market, but these have been undermined by cheap eastern imports. The quality sector of the market is, therefore, free for development and expansion. However, NorthernIreland is establishing itself in foreign markets as a leader in this field. Efforts must also be made to increase IT awareness among the local workforce. The IT sector is expanding rapidly beyond the rate at which individuals are being trained. Everyone must play a role in that.
In conclusion, the way forward for industrial development is for local government authorities to take existing small businesses and market their products overseas, whether on the United Kingdom mainland or in the United States, through targeted trade missions as opposed to inward investment drives. Government agencies, as currently structured, can cope with this and develop inward investment separately. Together we can make this work.

Mr Jim Wells: When I was being considered for a position on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee I thought that it sounded interesting. I thought that we would have the odd wander around factories and look at industrial investment. It did not sound too difficult. After eight months on the Committee I asked why every other Committee seems like a Sunday afternoon stroll when the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee’s work seems like an assault course. It is the busiest Committee in the Assembly and has the hardest working staff.

Mr Alan McFarland: What about the Regional Development Committee?

Mr Jim Wells: I can assure Mr McFarland that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee does a lot more work than the Regional Development Committee, and I speak as someone who has experience of both. We need to pay tribute to the extremely hard working Committee staff who have produced this huge document. We have gathered information from the widest possible range of interest groups. While the other Committees were lounging on some beach during the summer recess or having a glass of wine in some Greek restaurant, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee was working hard gathering evidence. It also went on a fact-finding mission to the United States.
There is a lot to commend in this report. We are in a period of enormous transition in NorthernIreland. In the Senate Chamber above the Public Gallery are three paintings on the ceiling depicting the three cornerstones of Northern Ireland’s industrial heritage. One is shipbuilding, the second is agriculture, and the third is textiles. The sad reality is that the one thing the three industries have in common is that they are declining fast. Employment opportunities are drying up very quickly in those three pillars of society. How we manage the change from the decline of those three pillars to the new vibrant global economy in which we find ourselves will decide whether NorthernIreland goes forward as a heartland of industrial expansion or stagnates.
There is much to commend in the report, particularly the way in which it deals with the major impediments that face us as we go forward. As someone who represents a constituency very close to the border, I strongly support the recommendation that we examine in detail the problems we face in having a land border with the Irish Republic. The fact that Northern Ireland is outside the euro zone while the Irish Republic is inside is a problem, and we know that we have lost opportunities for inward investment because of that. The decision on whether we do or do not join the Euro is not — thank goodness — one that this Assembly will ever have to take. That is a much bigger issue than even Sir Reg Empey could cope with. It is just as well that we do not have to deal with that, but we have to accept that not being in the euro zone causes difficult trading conditions.
The dreadful problem of the unequal excise duties on fuel has decimated employment in the fuel industry within 20-30 miles of the border. I understand that there has been a decline of 50% in the amount of diesel sold in Northern Ireland, while there has been an increase of 20% in the number of diesel cars. Something there does not add up, and it has had an enormous effect on garage businesses in the border area.
The big threat on the horizon is the aggregates tax. It is not that the tax is being implemented at a differential rate in the Republic; it is not being implemented there at all. I spoke to quarry owners last weekend, and many of them are seeking out quarries in the Irish Republic so that they can transfer staff and investment from Northern Ireland into such counties as Cavan, Leitrim, Westmeath and, to a lesser extent, Donegal. Jobs will migrate, simply because of the imposition of a tax that will have a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I take Mr Shannon’s point entirely. Clearly, none of this should call into question the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but on the basis of two sovereign Governments sitting down and discussing this issue, we must find some way of reducing the impact of these impediments to our economic growth.
I also strongly support the proposal for a review of the Barnett formula. This is one of those issues that need to be handled very carefully. At the moment, many believe that the Barnett formula should be assessed on the basis of need, rather than being a pure mathematical formula based on population. On the basis of need, Northern Ireland would get a higher proportion of the UK cake.
An issue that came up quite late in the inquiry — and I am glad that Mr Neeson quite properly raised it — was the role of the banks in the Northern Ireland economy. Many of us attended an event in the Long Gallery, sponsored by Dr McDonnell, at which the results of a survey were revealed. They indicated that the greatest single impediment to the expansion of local industry in Northern Ireland was the attitude of our banks.
The cartel of four large banks overcharges, places almost impossible conditions on loans, charges ridiculous rates of interest and tries to hide unfair charges in complicated statements. Eighty-five per cent of the businesses questioned suggested that they were the main impediment. Until we get the banks on board in the process, there will always be difficulties for the expansion of small industry in Northern Ireland.
I do not know what whip this Assembly or the Executive can crack with the banks, but there must be something wrong with institutions that take over £250 million per year out of the Northern Ireland economy and that seem almost to have a monopoly on small business loans. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. For example, £90 million a year from one bank goes straight out of the Northern Ireland economy to Australia. The Australians do not need it, and the Northern Ireland economy does. We must look at that. We are not talking about nationalisation, but we must bring these bodies under control. They have had it too good for too long.
My party and I strongly welcome the proposal to amalgamate all the industrial promotion bodies into one new unit. That is one of the most far-sighted proposals made by the Committee, and we support it. We also support the concept of its being taken outwith the Civil Service and given the flexibility and power to go out and attract industry and to employ the very best executives to seek new investment in Northern Ireland. That is an extremely welcome development that cannot come soon enough.
On the downside, however, the one issue that will handicap Northern Ireland’s future growth, apart from the difficulties of having the common land border and not being part of the euro, is the tremendous problem facing our infrastructure. We have the very difficult problem to crack of 25 to 30 years of underinvestment in our roads, ports and rail. Mr Campbell is looking at this matter, and I wish him well. When he was in the United States recently he looked at possible options for private sector investment without the loss of public control in infrastructure. If we can crack that problem, then we get round the other great bottleneck that is affecting our future expansion. If we cannot transport goods and services round and in and out of the Province quickly, we will always be lagging behind when it comes to future growth.
I support recommendations 10 and 11, which suggest that not only should we have a vibrant economy but also an environmentally aware and green economy. I do not see these aspects as being mutually exclusive. Ms Morrice spoke at length on this issue in the Committee. I see the revolution in the attitude to green issues as an opportunity for Northern Ireland rather than a threat. We have a problem with our shipbuilding industry, but perhaps instead of making ships we should make wind turbines. Northern Ireland should take the lead on these issues and show that it is possible to combine the protection of the environment with a vibrant economy.
There are some exciting opportunities as well as some concerns, and I commend the report to the Assembly. However, I agree with Mr Shannon that it is appalling that three absolutely vital issues affecting this Province were discussed and debated on the same day. This is the most important report to have come from any of the Committees so far, and an entire day should have been set aside for the debate. To have the debate on the same day as a debate on consequential loss for the rural community because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, together with a debate on foot-and-mouth disease itself, is not acceptable.
The full impact of this report should be on the front page of almost every newspaper in the Province, but that opportunity has been lost because of the foot-and-mouth disease debate. We have to manage our business better to ensure that this does not happen in the future.

Mr David Ford: Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to take up in full my allocated ten minutes. Unfortunately I have not heard much of the debate because I was at a meeting, but I have endeavoured to follow on television some of what has been said.
Given my past experience as a social worker, I welcome the fact that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, which might have been thought to have been solely concerned with the "hard economy", has made some firm and straightforward recommendations under the section which it headlines ‘Partnership and Cohesion’. There are major problems for the economy because of the failure to address the issues of poverty and long-term unemployment. We are not going to develop the economy of Northern Ireland in the way we need to if those who are educated do well and those at the bottom of the educational heap continue in short-term unskilled jobs and fail to contribute to the economy in the way in which they and their families need to in terms of the income payable. The Committee has made a significant contribution in that area, and that is to be welcomed. Frequently in the past that has been left out when looking at the field of economic development. Similarly the remarks on social cohesion, and the social economy and the role it can play, need to be followed through.
I should have known, having to follow Jim Wells, that the second of my hobby horses — environmental aspects of the economy — would have been well covered. So perhaps I should not make too much of that. The clean, green image that we have on this island compared to much of Europe is a major strength for potential economic development. It also presents a major threat if we do not continue to keep that image right, but it is a major opportunity for growth in the relevant areas of the economy, many of which Mr Wells covered.
I want to look at part of the issue raised by Sean Neeson, and that is the way in which the public sector relates to the private sector and the way in which the public sector manages to control, guide or exercise discretion over the direction of the economy.
I welcome the inclusion in the report of the slightly coy and guarded agreement that the need for tax varying powers has to be seriously addressed. We do not have the luxury of the Scots, who have tax varying powers in law but are frightened to use them. This is something that we will have to look into in the future. The report clearly lays down guidelines for carrying out a study, and we could build on that. It is the responsibility of everyone in the Chamber to look at the best economic future for Northern Ireland and only by using all the economic levers that we can to get the economy growing, people employed and businesses thriving will we begin to invest in infrastructure, develop private industry and start to repair the damage of the past.
‘Strategy 2010’ is an important document in that respect, and the Committee report must be welcomed. We should be working for economic success. It is perhaps regrettable that the Committee hedged round how tax varying powers might be handled in points 15, 16 and 17. At least it has recognised the term "fiscal flexibility", and I welcome the fact that that term appears.
It is not only dangerous radicals like me who think that fiscal flexibility is important. Bodies such as the Institute of Directors have joined the call for such powers as well. It is logical and makes common sense. A mature Government, even a devolved regional legislature, must have the power to control their own purse, or they will not have the powers they need. This is not just about how to spend the money — which we spent time discussing when we looked at budgets — it is also about where the money comes from and how we raise it. In that sense tax varying powers are integral to any economic planning.
Look at some of the debates we have had. We discussed fuel tax and looked at the problem of the different tax rates across the border. We had a recent debate on the aggregates tax. Mr Wells has left, so he cannot exercise his environmentalist concern over the way in which the aggregates tax may or may not be applied. However, if it is applied as currently proposed by the UK Government, there is no doubt that there will be a migration of jobs to quarries in the Republic.
We all recognise that we need to determine policy and drive it forward — not just taking the income as given. We could look at taxation in a number of other areas as well. Part of the reason for the economic growth in the Republic is that it has a lower rate of corporation tax than we do. That creates difficulties for this corner of the island that the "Celtic tiger" economy does not have.
I welcome the recognition of all that is inadequate with the Barnett formula. There must be change. As the report acknowledges, Barnett was thought to be a short- term solution in the 1970s. It is something that we are stuck with, a blunt instrument that has completely failed to address the levels of real need in the three "Celtic fringe" nations as opposed to England.
Last week the redistribution of Government resources within the regions of England was raised. That issue is not going to go away. However, the Assembly should be careful to say that the revision of Barnett is not just a threat — although there is a degree of threat — it is also an opportunity. We can make a case for a needs-based assessment rather than a simple headcount-based assessment. Whatever needs to be adjusted between English regions, like the south-west and the north-east on the one hand and Greater London and the south-east on the other, there is a continuing need for this region to receive a fair allocation from the UK Exchequer. That requires a modification to Barnett and amendments to our tax varying powers, whenever we get them.
When we discussed the regional rate, my party was accused of wanting the money but not wanting to raise it because we opposed the increase. The increase was gradually whittled down due to the pressure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel was under. Every time he looked in his back pocket, the Civil Service allowed him to find a few more million pounds.
The regional rate, however it is used for raising taxes, is about the most blunt and unfair possible taxation. We need to look for a better system of taxation based, almost certainly, on income tax but with variations on corporation tax. There is also potential for other tax-varying powers, which we must have.
This is the first report from any Assembly Committee that has recognised that Barnett is a matter for all Members, not just the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and has agreed the need for tax-varying powers. I welcome and endorse the Committee’s report on ‘Strategy 2010’.

Sir Reg Empey: I welcome the report and thank the Committee, the strategy steering group (SSG) and the Economic Development Forum (EDF) for their contributions. I feared that Mr Wells was going to eulogise and even propose the beatification of some of the Committee members who were obviously working so hard. However, I also acknowledge the work that they put in.
They worked over the summer, which my Department hopes they will do again this summer. There are plans in the pipeline to keep them occupied. We hope that the result of this significant amount of activity will be positive.
Adam Ingram, as Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development, initiated the process. In the foreword to ‘Strategy 2010’ he emphasised that it had been produced as a basis for discussion. It was also envisaged that leadership for that debate would come from the Assembly and that there would be extensive involvement from the wider community. I highlight those points because the Chairperson’s opening remarks focused on the consultation issue, which has also been mentioned by others.
I have made it clear that I have never, either now or in the past, viewed ‘Strategy 2010’ as a definitive or fixed blueprint to be slavishly followed. Rather, it was an agenda for change created over two years ago in a unique partnership that would extend through a consultative process to the implementation of accepted recommendations.
It will be recalled that delays in getting devolution had an impact on the speed at, and the degree to, which recommendations were implemented. Adam Ingram indicated in the foreword of the document that the Assembly would have to deliberate on it and, ultimately, decide its fate.
By initiating this debate the Committee has obviously led the further stage of the process, which was added to by the 58 written evidence and 45 oral evidence sessions — a substantial amount of work. The SSG, the 11 sectoral and seven cross-sectoral teams and the ‘Strategy 2010’ consultation panel deserve thanks for their efforts to produce the strategy in the first place.
Members will recall that a huge number of people, much larger than in the past, were involved in this exercise. It would not have taken place in this fashion had it not been for the arrival of devolution. Never before under direct rule was such a substantial amount of consultation undertaken, and, although the Committee has pointed out weaknesses with that process, we must nevertheless thank those who gave voluntarily of their time to enable it to occur.
Thanks are due to the EDF which was established as one of the recommendations in the ‘Strategy 2010’ report. It has given generously of its time over the past 18 months to provide advice on many of the other recommendations and related key issues. It should be noted that, during the Committee’s inquiry, our new structures have been working increasingly effectively and the Programme for Government has been developed and approved.
The Programme for Government states the Executive’s priorities across all areas of expenditure, including economic development. It is important to remember that the programme is not set in stone but is designed to be reviewed on an annual basis. This provides the opportunity for many of the recommendations that are foreshadowed in the report to find their way through into the programme because that is the only way, ultimately, in which they will be implemented.
The task now is to ensure that agreed priorities and measures are reflected in the Programme for Government as it is rolled out over the years. I repeat that this will be on an annual basis because things change continually. It is not possible to determine what should happen and then sit and wait for it to happen in the economy. The Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee also focused on the lack of economic modelling, and I know that that has been a criticism from some professional economists. However, the ‘Strategy 2010’ report did understand those matters, and there was a number of contributions from the Northern Ireland Economic Counsel (NIEC), which has done reports in the past, and from the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC) itself, which exists to carry out research. The ‘Strategy 2010’ Committees were not without an awareness of such matters.
Globalisation has also been mentioned today, and, of course, that was in the context of today’s being May Day. The Chairperson also spoke about the Republic, and how well it has been doing. There is no economy that has benefited more from globalisation than the Republic because it was that process that brought the benefits, and that needs to be spelled out.
Several Members, including the Chairperson, referred to the question of equality. Equality and social cohesion was one of the ‘Strategy 2010’ report’s key themes. Page 14 of the report states that
"Everyone in Northern Ireland must have a stake in economic success. The benefits must be fairly shared and we need real partnership in our drive for common goals and social cohesion."
Equality and social cohesion, therefore, are incorporated into the ‘Strategy 2010’ report. The Programme for Government has picked this theme up and it states that
"Our vision — as set out in the agreement — is of a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society".
It goes on to say that this vision is and must be
"based on ‘partnership, equality and mutual respect".
New TSN is also a new policy of the Executive, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment policies give priority to New TSN areas. I noticed that Mr Carrick raised the issue of the borough of Craigavon and said that he did not want his area to be disadvantaged by New TSN policies. There is an element of unnecessary alarm about the issue. There is nothing wrong in saying to people, who might wish to invest, that there are certain areas of our territory where we wish to see industry strengthened because there are weaknesses. We cannot instruct and we do not attempt to prevent people going to another location if that is what they want to do. However, we do encourage them and that can be done financially, as well as in other ways. If an employer decides that he wants to invest in a particular area, there would be no question of our taking any action to prevent that. However, the Department is saying that there are clearly identified areas in our Province that have specific and special needs, and it is only proper that we give credence to that policy. The Department is fully committed to that; it has targets in the Programme for Government, and I am happy to say that, at the moment, it is achieving those targets.
I hope that Mr Carrick will not be alarmed. I have been to his borough on a number of occasions, and I have spoken to the representatives of the district council; I have visited the area extensively, and I can assure him that no discrimination is taking place against the borough as a result of New TSN policies.
A number of Members referred to partnership and shared ownership, and the Chairperson mentioned the Fast Track to employment IT schemes in the Republic. Obviously that is a matter that my colleague, Dr Farren, will want to address together with a number of the recommendations in the report.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has identified that the Committee’s recommendations are spread over eight of the 10 Departments, and seven Departments have recommendations pertaining to them. Consequently, my Department has written to the other Departments seeking their views and advice on those recommendations. Therefore I am not in a position to come to a definitive view on the report today. I communicated that to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson in advance of today’s debate, because I do not want it to be seen as any discourtesy to the Committee.
Think of the practicalities. The Committee has taken months to prepare this substantial report — the Department has only had it for a few weeks. Many of the recommendations involve other Departments; we have not yet had their input, and it is not possible to have definitive views on such a wide range of recommendations yet. Furthermore, I have been asked to respond in writing by early June, when it would be my intention to give a more definitive response.
I do not believe that the Committee expects me to treat such a substantial report with a cursory view, so I am not in a position to say that I can, and will, implement every one of the recommendations. I can say that each is being pursued actively and will be responded to, by me in writing, in early June provided that I am given the proper responses by the other Departments that I have contacted. I have no doubt that that will be the case.
A number of Members, including the Deputy Chairperson, referred to the Barnett formula and the fiscal environment; indeed Mr Ford talked about the matter at some length. I have written to the Financial Secretary many times about items such as aggregates tax and fuel duty. I have been to see the Financial Secretary and I know that my Colleague, Mark Durkan, has prepared a comprehensive list of tax issues. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister saw the Chancellor earlier this year. I receive regular and frequent correspondence on those two issues, and I know, and agree, that anybody who is seriously taking a land border into account would not have come up with the aggregates tax as currently drafted. It amounts to a tax in excess of 60% on quarry products here compared with 25% on quarry products in Great Britain.
Anybody with an ounce of wit could see that a lorry load of stones can be driven a few miles along the road and would replace the production needs of a particular area. I share the environmental objective that the people who designed this tax may have; and a number of Members, including Mrs Carson, have referred to environmental issues. However, if the product can be replaced a few miles down the road, the tax is not capable of achieving its objective, and there is no point in having it. Quarrying will not become a revenue raising activity, because the revenue, like fuel duty, is being substituted.
Statistics show that, in the last five or six years, the amount of legally-imported fuel into Northern Ireland has halved. However, we all know that there has been a substantial increase in the number of vehicles on the road. It is perfectly clear that fuel duty is being lost to the Chancellor. We have pointed this out on a number of occasions. I have received delegations from a wide range of Assembly Members who are all saying the same thing. Mr Durkan, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regularly correspond with the Treasury on one or other of those issues — and sometimes on all of them. The Executive are very focused on this issue, and we are trying to do our best.
We have to deal with the issue of the Barnett formula and related matters very cautiously. We are opening up a Pandora’s box, so we need to be very careful. We have benefited significantly from substantial public expenditure over the years. We are fortunate that throughout the first three years of devolution we have benefited, and will continue to benefit, from a background of real increases in public expenditure — not simply cash increases, but increases in real terms, after adjustment for inflation. That is a background that we did not think we would have. I know that Mark Durkan, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are looking very closely at that issue and that research is being carried out. The alternative to the Barnett formula is a needs-based formula in which you have to prove the needs.
I have little doubt that we can all think of examples, such as in health or education, where our need is greater. There may be other areas where we do better than other UK regions. However, do not assume that we will have a smooth passage from the Treasury. I can assure you that that will not be the case. Some Members have referred to the single development agency — Mr Neeson was one of them. We are making progress on that. It is a very complicated exercise, but its time has come. The agencies were developed over 30 years; things have now moved on, and it is only right and proper that at this stage we implement our decision to create a new agency. I hope that that work will result in legislation being brought to the House at some stage in the latter part of next month, but clearly it will have to carry over into the autumn before its passage is completed.
Mr McClarty focused very strongly on tourism — an industry that has been growing steadily. As has been indicated by a number of Members, it has huge potential. It could very well be our second fastest growing industry, if not our fastest. There is great potential in Northern Ireland for tourism, and it is very sad that we have been crippled so far this year by the unfortunate circumstances of the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
Dr McDonnell made the point that the ‘Strategy 2010’ document was valuable and was a major milestone. That is probably true — it was the first document of its type under direct rule. It involved a wide range of people. However, as Dr McDonnell rightly pointed out, it is the quality of the intervention, rather that the quantity, that is important. That is a lesson that we have learnt.
Dr Birnie referred to the grant mentality that we used to have. Indeed, we are at the top of a European League table. If one examines the amount of money that is given by agencies now and analyses what it is given for, one can see that LEDU has almost done away with capital grants. Technically it still has got the power to give them, but very rarely does so.
I have closely examined the major investment decisions on projects costing over £1 million, which require my approval, and very few of these involve capital expenditure. Such expenditure is rarely a significant part of any package. Far more emphasis, from LEDU’s point of view, is placed on what is described as "soft assistance", but I think that is the wrong term. The assistance is often based on advice and marketing, but in many agencies it is focused on individuals by means of employment grants, assistance with premises and other matters. Capital grant aid is not the significant force that it once was. The Department is working towards rebalancing this package as part of a long-term process.
It is great to stand up here and to debate this issue, but we all know that if problems hit an area or a company in a Member’s own constituency, the economic theory is thrown out of the window, and it is more a case of Members saying "We have got to bail this boy out". We are all politicians, and we have to admit that these things happen. If it happens in our own back yard, we will go out to save the operation as best we can.
It is easy to uphold the theory, and Members might reject the concept of capital grants by saying "We are not going to subsidise inefficiency, we are just going to let that company close". However, when such a closure actually takes place, few people will come out of the trenches. When companies get into difficulties, I receive phone calls and letters. Members also ask me "Can I bring so-and-so to see you?" We are all the same; I am no different. The theory is fine, but its implementation is another matter. Nobody wants to see enterprises failing or closing, but we must develop the strong trend away from the grant mentality, towards different forms of finance.
I agree entirely with Mr Neeson’s suggestion that we examine the procedures of America’s small business administration. It is a totally different system, but it seems to have been very successful, therefore there might be some potential in that. However, while the Treasury continues to treat guarantees as money spent in total, we will have serious problems, and I think that the Member knows that.
I have already mentioned Mr Carrick’s point. Ms Morrice said that this is a gigantic task, and I fully acknowledge that. She also stated that wealth should not be measured in terms of GNP alone, but on the basis of quality of life. That is a very good point, and Northern Ireland could do very well in this regard, because it is possible to enjoy a very good quality of life here, provided that one is given peace to get on with it. One of the things that we like to tell visitors is that we have a very high quality of life in Northern Ireland.
Dr Birnie also referred to the consultation with professional economists, and he made a rather colourful analogy drawn from naval architecture. One can think of others, but "re-engineering" ‘Strategy 2010’, as he referred to it, is probably an appropriate phrase because it was never intended to be set in concrete. I have never said that I accept every recommendation, because I have never done that. I have no doubt that we will "re-engineer" this report in due course.
Mr McGrady referred to the new agency. He also — as is often the case from his correspondence — referred to tourism in his area. I know that he feels strongly about these matters. He mentioned removing the local government cap on local economic development expenditure. I do not have a problem with that. The vast majority of local authorities do not spend to the 5p limit. Some councils have stuck with the 2p limit that they have been used to while one or two have raised their limit. However, it is a matter for the Minister of the Environment and I have made my views known to him.
Mark Robinson talked about massive changes and said that we must embrace such changes. He referred to a number of education issues such as general national vocational qualifications (GNVQs) being scorned. I understand his point. It is a problem of perceptions, and Sean Farren is very focused on that.
Mr Robinson also referred to the 8% rise in business rates. It is not an 8% rise in business rates — the rise is 3·3% after Mr Durkan compared how we are faring with GB. People must understand that the Treasury take a very jaundiced view of our policy on rates for properties and businesses. It consistently argues that in many cases our rates are not more than 40% of what people in GB would be paying. It argues that there is a significant financial gap. I am pleased that it has been possible to retain the increase to 3·3% for businesses, and that will include businesses in the Member’s constituency.
Mrs Carson, and a number of Members, referred to the section of the report dealing with the clean, green economy. She also referred to biomass and other products in her area. There is potential for all of these, and if we can get the technology right, it is an area that agriculture could move into, particular after the recent trauma that there has been in that sector.
Mrs Courtney referred to tax exemption for creative industries. There has been a very strong group formed on creative industries. We are pushing them very hard because we see big advantages there. It is an issue that the Chancellor is going to have to address. I would be happy to add that topic to the list of tax issues that Mr Durkan is looking at. I would ask my officials to remind me to write to him about that. It could be a way of giving people a chance to get started. There may be some measures that have been introduced, but perhaps they could be more adventurous.
Mr Shannon referred to the role of local government. He is speaking to the converted because I spent a long time in local government. I agree with him that there are many things that local authorities can do. When the reform of local government takes place — and I made this clear to the forum that we held in Antrim a couple of weeks ago for all local authorities — I want to see them having a more defined role. The problem at the moment is that some local authorities are so small that they do not have enough of a financial base to give them the opportunity to provide adequate services.
I referred to Mr Wells and the assault course that he has embarked on. He seems to be thriving on it. He is obviously anxious for more, and, undoubtedly, our Department will have picked that up and will be very happy to provide him with more activity.
We now have one of the positive products of devolution. It takes time to change policy; it is like an oil tanker — it takes time to turn around. We are moving to a stage where mature discussions and debates can take place.
While it is for the Business Committee to organise debates, much activity has been crammed into one day — all of it on issues that we feel strongly about. I hope that the Assembly authorities can take this point on board. By this time a number of Members may be beginning to run out of steam. This is an issue that we should be spending more time debating.
I thank the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the members of the Committee. My Department is taking the report very seriously; all our senior officials are in the Chamber to hear the debate. We will be responding comprehensively when we get the reports from the other Departments. I acknowledge the report, but at this stage I am unable to do justice to all the recommendations by giving responses off the top of my head.
I will respond to the Committee in detail, recommendation by recommendation, early next month. When we get through that process and have agreement between the Committee and the Department, we may find that it is necessary to amend the policies in the Programme for Government. If so, we can go forward jointly with the amendments when the review of that process comes up at the end of this year.

Mr Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and all the Members who participated in the debate. I am greatly encouraged by the support of the Minister, and I understand the parameters within which he has to work.
There is agreement that urgent measures need to be undertaken to develop sound economic policies that will ultimately provide a better standard of living for us all. I will respond briefly to some of the comments.
Sean Neeson made a very telling comment that was reflected in the Minister’s speech — ‘Strategy 2010’ is not written in tablets of stone. It is a developing document. Mr Neeson focused on fiscal policy and, cautiously, on the Barnett formula. He also focused on the need to support small businesses to such an extent that they become the backbone of our economy. I support him.
David McClarty spoke of the importance of tourism, saying that it could develop to such an extent that it would become the second most important industry in Ireland. I recognise that. He talked about the need to market the island of Ireland as a whole so that we can all move forward and focus in on this industry. He said that events tourism is the way forward, giving the North West 200 as an example.
Alasdair McDonnell focused — as he did in Committee — on globalisation. Globalisation is the name of the game and has been for the last 10 years. We need to accept that, along with all its problems. He also said that the single development agency needed to have teeth and real talent in order to produce inward investment. He said that we must penetrate new technology to create new, better-paid jobs, and he made that point continuously throughout our deliberations.
Mervyn Carrick said that it was two years since ‘Strategy 2010’ was first produced and that it had moved on. He also said that we needed to focus on education and training and to gear them to the skills required in industry.
Jane Morrice said that economic and social development must always go hand in hand. She said that we needed to move out of the mentality of the fear of failure, as that was crippling us, and that we should learn from the way that the Americans took risks and developed. She also focused on the needs and demands of women in the workplace, the single European currency that we can no longer ignore and the value of the social economy, which is something that we are all recognising.
Esmond Birnie said that the economy urgently needed entrepreneurs and managers. I was aware of all of his comments and have taken note of his three areas of concern. We had a separate dialogue — in fact, it was probably the first dialogue between Committee Chairpersons. We were both aware that, in many ways, our report touched on areas of concern to his Committee. Very early on in our final submissions we agreed to extract all the facets of our report that were of relevance to his report. It was a good exercise for us, and I appreciate very much his comments on the report.
Eddie McGrady spoke about the need to focus on regional disparities in relation to the long-term unemployed. We did that quite thoroughly, but he focused on one aspect of the IT skills. He also mentioned that tourism needed to be driven, financed and given specific targets, which was a very good comment.
Mark Robinson said that we needed to market ourselves as a first-class destination for inward investment, and that the GNVQ should be valued as a qualification. Those are very good recommendations.
Joan Carson talked about the lower corporation tax in the South and how that was having an effect on us. She also said that we, as an Assembly, now had an opportunity to address our problems rather than to depend on other people to do so.
Annie Courtney, another Committee Colleague, talked of the stronger links required between further education and industry and the need for tax exemptions for creative industries. Again, she focused on women in the work place.
Jim Shannon spoke on the need for extra zoning of industrial land. He also said that the role of local government needed clarification and that local government should have a role in reducing unemployment. These were well made points, and they are recognised.
Committee Colleague Jim Wells highlighted at the start of his contribution the fact that the three big industries of shipbuilding, textiles and agriculture were all in decline and that we needed to recognise that and focus on the new emerging IT and related industries to replace them. He highlighted the aggregates tax as a big problem and the fact that we have a land border with the South. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I was almost going to say that I had a solution for him on that, but I will not develop it today given the time factors. He mentioned the way in which the banks take profit out of the state — that is well recognised, and we should support his position on that.
David Ford spoke of the major problems for the economy arising from poverty-related issues and long-term unemployment. He spoke very clearly on the need to tackle the issue of tax-varying powers. The Barnett formula was again mentioned. Even though there are problems — which the Minister highlighted — it is not simply an open chequebook that we will be seeking in renegotiating that. He also said that the regional rates are a fairly blunt and unfair way of raising tax.
In a conversation I had with the Minister some time ago, he reiterated the point that we, in a sense, had inherited ‘Strategy 2010’ from Adam Ingram and his committee. That is where the origins of the document lie. For him, and I suppose for us, it is an agenda for change. At one stage, perhaps not today, he said that the original document — and our criticism and evaluation of it — is actually a living document that is constantly developing. I think that that is true — we could be back here in a year’s time developing it further. It is in that context that I take all his other points. He noted the benefits of globalisation and reiterated the commitments to New TSN.
I understand entirely that the Minister cannot give a definitive commitment today to the document because it covers eight other Departments and is a living and developing document. I appreciate his commitment to it and the praise he gave the work put in so far. He also said that he would respond in due course to all of the recommendations, which I also appreciate.
The aggregates tax, the fuel tax, the Barnett formula and the single development agency were also touched on essentially to culminate in the improved quality of life we are collectively trying to achieve as we move forward with joined-up government.
I accept that some of the recommendations can be introduced relatively easily and quickly. However, others are more long term and will involve a substantial cost. We do not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. It is crucial that all the Committees take a full interest in the issues that fall within their own Departments’s responsibility. It is also crucial that all the Departments involved give a clear commitment to deliver those recommendations, which do much to highlight the impact that joined-up government can have.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the Committee members, for this was an enormous task that we undertook — probably a much bigger task that we realised at the outset. Our Committee is made up of, as other Committees are, 11 members from six parties. It consists of three members of the SDLP, two members of the UUP, two members of Sinn Féin, two members of the DUP, one member of the Alliance Party and one member of the Women’s Coalition.
The six parties worked together, even through the summer recess — something I will not inflict on them again this summer, unless the Committee Clerk, Cathie White, decides otherwise. I would like to thank every one of the Committee members — and also the new members who joined us for the work — for the collective way in which the work was approached. It is proof that when we focus on an issue we can deal with it and leave other issues outside the door. I would also like to thank the Committee staff, who did an enormous amount of work — we could not have had better staff.
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister and his entire Department for the way in which they related to us while we were dealing with the report. I thank the Minister for the open way that he gave us access to whatever we requested and for the openness with which his departmental officials dealt with us. That too is a recommendation of the way to move forward and on how to make joined-up government work. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Second Report of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee on its inquiry into the ‘Strategy 2010’ Report (2/00R) and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to implement the recommendations of the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
Adjourned at 6.44 pm.